Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

PAX, LUX ET VERITAS SINCE 1965
Post Hoarding vs Sharing Cultures
Created by John Eipper on 07/10/17 3:51 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:

Post

Hoarding vs Sharing Cultures (Tor Guimaraes, USA, 07/10/17 3:51 am)

John Eipper stated on July 9th: "Anthropologists speak of 'hoarding' vs 'sharing' societies. The former is the cornerstone of a capitalist economy. Moreover, the hoarders inevitably defeat the sharers, who are left with a romantic moral victory but little else. Hobbes over Rousseau?"

Hoarding is not a word complimentary enough to describe the extremely constructive cycle of savings, investment in the discovery of new knowledge, new technology, entrepreneurship, and economic development, which leads to more of the same. Thus despite its potential for self-destruction, the ideology of capitalism has been extremely constructive and has produced incredible results.

As I preach without a pulpit from my book God for Atheists and Scientists, a nation which fully embraces this virtuous cycle will in a few decades become most powerful. The sharing part is important also but should be secondary; so as the most successful group members become abnormally wealthy and powerful, some of their wealth should be shared with their employees, managers, and society. Without such sharing of their enormous individual wealth and power, the latter can eventually become a problem for the individual and the group. The "hoarder" will start investing to undermine the democratic processes of the nation, control the legislative process, eliminate competition and free markets, overpower the rest of the group/nation into servitude and second-class citizenship, and in many cases engage in aggression and manipulation of the weaker (sharers or otherwise) nations.

JE comments:  Tor Guimaraes puts in a vote for hoarding cultures, although he prefers to call it "savings."  Absolutely.  Likewise, politicians never speak of "spending" on a program they like; it's "investing."

Hoarding has entered the public consciousness through reality TV, which show people sleeping in their cars because their houses are piled to the ceiling with junk.  At what point does virtuous saving turn into obsessive hoarding?  What other languages have a direct translation of "to hoard"?  Spanish makes do with "acumular," but this is a neutral word with no pathological undertones.


SHARE:
Rate this post
Informational value 
Insight 
Fairness 
Reader Ratings (0)
0%
Informational value0%
Insight0%
Fairness0%

Visits: 134

Comments/Replies

Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

  • Hoarding and Sharing (Henry Levin, USA 07/10/17 9:31 AM)

    Virtually all economists agree that for a society to prosper, it must have the ability to move above subsistence. For a rising standard of living it is necessary to have capital accumulation. But, both capitalism and state socialism have both accumulation consequences and distributional ones as well as for freedom of choice and despoiling the environment. If the average level of capital per-capita rises, but is accumulated mostly by the rich, the economic status of the poor may still be at subsistence levels or close to it. This is also true when the capital is accumulated by the state and the political classes that govern the state.


    When forms of social and economic organization are discussed, we must differentiate their aggregate impact on capital accumulation and income and the distributional consequences. And one can add to this the sustainability of resources and despoilation of the air and water as part of the discussion. But this requires raising the level of discussion beyond slogans and anthropologists' definitions. It also entails issues of governance and freedoms and their consequences. If there is interest in constructing scorecards, there are far more dimensions than the present WAIS conversations.


    JE comments:  Exploring the nuances is exactly what WAIS tries to do.  Granted. it sometimes takes several postings to get there.  Henry Levin makes a convincing case that the "hoarding/sharing" distinction is a gross oversimplification. 


    Remember "sun people" vs "ice people"?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Jeffries  Ice people must accumulate food and fuel to survive.  Sun people cannot keep food from spoiling, so they give away the surplus in the hope that next time, the generosity will be repaid.  It's another profound oversimplification, but interesting food (!) for thought.

    Please login/register to reply or comment:

    • Is Capitalism a "Natural State"? From Ric Mauricio (John Eipper, USA 07/10/17 5:00 PM)

      Ric Mauricio writes:



      John Eipper commented on 8 July with "the counterargument is that capitalism, rampant or not, is not an ideology. It's a natural state that just is. Other 'isms' are imposed, hence artificial. Shall we scrutinize this assumption?"


      I happen to be of the opinion that capitalism, in its purest form, is a natural state. On the other side, communism, with its forced allegiance by a government, is "unnatural."


      Capitalism is man's natural need to innovate, be creative, and to be productive. Barter, or the exchange of goods between people, further evolved into the use of coinage. If I invent a product or a process, it is natural that I would want to be compensated for my blood, sweat and tears (and risk-taking). Trade is good. It benefits many. It raises our standard of living.


      One can compare basic capitalism to another natural state: spirituality or the seeking of a greater ideology on why we exist. Siddhartha, Lao Tzu, and Jesus (sorry, have not studied other religions enough to add more names to this group) all espoused this spirituality in their teachings.


      Now the reason I made this comparison is to show how a natural state can be hijacked to produce a more unnatural state. How so? Well, in the case of the teachings of Siddhartha, Lao Tzu, and Jesus, they were hijacked by Confucius and the Apostle Paul to produce religions. And religionists further destroy the natural state by imposing unnatural legality that lose the heart of the original teachings (yes, Jesus pissed off the Pharisees by pointing this out). It is interesting that there are those who attempt to codify Zen or Buddhism by writing books on it. And they never quite get it because Zen cannot be codified. Enlightenment (Christians don't seem to understand that the concept of the Holy Spirit as enlightenment) cannot be codified. It is a natural "is."  And Buddha is not a big fat guy. Buddha is enlightenment. Christians don't seem to get the concept of Jesus' teachings as the path to enlightenment.


      In the case of capitalism, the natural is turned into the unnatural through the hoarding of wealth, thus losing the pureness of the original concept. Our world celebrates this hoarding with its edification of those who are wealthy.


      Now here's a question: since communism or even socialism is the forcing of people into sharing, does that mean that sharing is "unnatural"? I believe that there is a natural need to share, but one can lose the natural spirit of sharing when forced through the commercialization of sharing.


      JE comments:  Even before the barter economy can evolve, you need the concept of private property.  To see that sharing is natural as well, look no further than the primary unit of "communism":  the family.  From each according to her ability, to each according to her needs.


      Non-human animals share, but do they barter?  I cannot think of any examples.


      Please login/register to reply or comment:

      • Is Capitalism a "Natural State"? Animal Barter (Luciano Dondero, Italy 07/11/17 10:36 AM)
        Interesting post from Ric Mauricio (11 July).

        It seems to me, however, that "capitalism" is too much of a loaded term to be used to describe a natural situation. To begin with, it is associated in everybody's mind with the echoes of the Cold War (Communism vs. Capitalism) and thus it is understood as meaning the US basically. For a number of reasons, no country currently in existence could have escaped from many bad elements resulting from that conflict.


        Regarding JE's query about barter and non-human animals, off the top of my head I can give a few examples.

        Various species of ants farm various kinds of insects, exchanging the "military protection" of their nests for food. In many species of spiders, the tiny male offer a bundle containing a juicy insect ready for consumption to the much larger female, obtaining sex in exchange for that--and also getting a good chance of coming out of the "love bed" alive.


        JE comments:  Does the male spider offer a meal so that he doesn't become a meal?  All this begs the question:  is extortion a form of barter?  I suppose it is.


        Great to hear from you, Luciano.


        Please login/register to reply or comment:

        • Capitalism and Communism in the Bible (John Heelan, -UK 07/12/17 5:04 AM)
          Interesting comments from Luciano Dondero (11 July). Re the Communism vs Capitalism trope, is it not interesting that one can find Biblical quotations and parables supporting both ideologies? Or does that tell us something about the malleability of religions to the hegemony in which they sit?

          JE comments: Perhaps the most capitalist episode in the Bible is the Parable of the Talents (Matthew), which endorses both inequality and an aggressive investment strategy.  The hapless servant left with one talent is reprimanded for "burying" it to keep it safe.  His portfolio was the equivalent of a low-interest CD.  Curse you, wicked servant.


          On the flip side, Liberation Theology often cites the "communist" society of Jesus and the Disciples, who disdained private property.


          Yes, the Bible can support any ideology.


          Please login/register to reply or comment:


        • Origins of Capitalism: Genoa, or Jericho? (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 07/12/17 6:09 AM)
          Following the thought-provoking post of Luciano Dondero (11 July), I must second him in questioning the use of the word "capitalism" to indicate a natural situation. How can we call "natural" the present capitalist system that has been (is) loathed by billions of people?

          By the way, some believe that modern capitalism was born in 1407 with the founding of the "Officium Comperarum et Bancorum Sancti Georgi," the future Bank of St. George of Genoa, but what about the Medici of Florence, who nearly went bankrupt in 1478 because of the default of the British King Edward IV and the Lancasters? A curiosity from the 1930s: someone in Italy started talking about asking for a refund of the capital given to the Crown, together with interest.


          Returning to the topic of feelings, I have the feeling that what John E and many other WAIS colleagues have referred to as capitalism is the evolution of what started, even much earlier than the Bank of St George, but immediately when humans started settling in the first town (for example Jericho 8000 BCE) with the first storage of grain. Modern capitalism, on the other hand, is only an awful degeneration of that.


          Personally I always considered "real-world" communism and capitalism as the two opposite sides of the same degenerate state.


          JE comments:  Most would agree that capital-C Capitalism began in the Middle Ages in Italy, with the advent of double-entry bookkeeping (Genoa, Florence) and the brokerage houses of Venice.  The first more or less modern stock exchange appeared in Antwerp in the 1500s.  Then and now, it's all about pooling wealth and spreading out risk.

          Please login/register to reply or comment:

          • Origins of Capitalism; on Human Adaptability (Luciano Dondero, Italy 07/13/17 3:39 PM)
            I think that Eugenio Battaglia (12 July) may have a point when he queries whether the origins of "capitalism"--or whatever we want to call what appears to be a "natural" way of making deals among humans involving private property, agriculture, money and city walls--goes as far back as Jericho (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho ).

            I would like to make a more general observation with respect to this discussion: we should keep in mind that not everything which is natural is also good or positive or desirable.


            Among human behaviors which are widespread across many societies and many ages one can find rape, theft, murder, corruption, nepotism and cannibalism. By the way, many animals share these proclivities.  And of course we suffer from diseases like smallpox, heart failure, arthrosis and cancer, which are also definitely natural occurrences.


            Not to mention earthquakes, volcano eruptions and big rocks falling from the sky and generating mass extinction-level events, like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs, which by the way produced conditions favorable for the emergence of our very own species some 60 million years later.



            It might be useful to consider a few things about Homo Sapiens.



            What distinguishes us from other species on the planet is our extreme ability to adapt our behavior to suit the environment around us.



            We are the only species that inhabits almost every nook and cranny of planet Earth. (Ants and other insects are also fairly widespread, but there are many different genera and species of them while there is just one species of humans.)



            Because a crucial component of any environment are animals that want to eat us (predators), animals that we want to eat (prey), and especially other individuals like ourselves (peers), we humans have developed an uncanny capacity for large-scale cooperation, while maintaining our individuality and striving to fulfill our own desires and aims.



            This means, for instance, that any attempt to "organise" a society according to high-falutin' principles that go against the grain of human nature is doomed to failure: any utopia with collectivist traits implodes from within (eg. communism in the USSR and China), or simply fades away (eg. the kibbutz movement in Israel).



            But humans have also been able to build societies where some of the least palatable components of human behavior are regarded as crimes, are legislated and fought against, and are more or less diminishing.

            Furthermore, even though we are highly individualist beings, we humans manage to accomplish feats of cooperation that rivals those of ants' super-organisms.



            And our human conglomerates are not made up of clones or of closely related individuals: we succeed in associating complete strangers to undertake hard and dangerous activities, witness what occurs in any emergency situation.



            While this is certainly mediated by our culture, and by a societal ethos that encourages solidarity and taking care of others, there is a clear evidence that this is also in part innate, ie. it is in our genes.



            A book that sheds a fair amount of light on this is The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker (2011); very controversial as it posits that violence has been diminishing over the centuries, not in absolute figures, of course, but percentage-wise.


            JE comments:  Luciano Dondero points out a paradox:  "natural" is not necessarily good, certainly when it comes to human behavior, yet "unnatural" social experiments don't work, either.


            Francisco Ramírez argues against the "natural/unnatural" distinction when discussion economic organization.  Read on...


            Please login/register to reply or comment:


          • Genesis of Capitalism: Luciano Pellicani (Francisco Ramirez, USA 07/14/17 3:36 AM)
            This is a paper I find especially interesting and the first one I assign in my course on World, Societal, and Educational Change:

            Luciano Pellicani. "On the Genesis of Capitalism." Telos 74, 1987-1988: 43-64.


            The terms natural and unnatural are not useful in this discussion, since we are talking about a historical mode of production and the degree to which its logic permeates human society. This is not natural as in the object of study in the natural sciences. But it is not necessarily unnatural in the sense of perversion or contrary to human nature. Humans are very flexible and can clearly co-exist with all sorts of economic, political, and social structures that are not only the products of human activity but which shape and give meaning to human activity.


            JE comments:  Pellicani's essay doesn't seem to be anywhere on the 'Net; nor could I locate it through Adrian's JStor subscription.  Pellicani also has a book titled The Genesis of Capitalism and the Origins of Modernity.  Haven't read it, but I cribbed the following:  Pellicani rejects the two major global/totalizing theories of the rise of capitalism, Marx's theory of accumulation and Weber's Protestant work ethic.  In their place, Pellicani sees capitalism's rise as a combination of societal, historical, and structural factors.  I wonder if his inquiry also includes geography (accessibility to trade) and the environment (high food-yielding plants and animals), two crucial influences on a society's development.


            Did I get that right, Francisco?


            Please login/register to reply or comment:

            • Capitalism: an Unspecified Beast (Luciano Dondero, Italy 07/16/17 4:29 AM)
              I'm afraid Luciano Pellicani's essay (Francisco Ramírez, 14 July) shows exactly why there is a problem when talking of "capitalism" as if it were some kind of "natural" process (or period) in the history of mankind.

              According to the Telos website, the abstract of "On the Genesis of Capitalism" goes as follows:


              "Any consideration of the genesis of capitalism must start from Marx for two reasons: what Marx himself wrote on the subject; and the many accounts developed to explain the formation of modern market society either as alternatives to or elaborations of Marx's theory. Marx sees universal history as a succession of modes of production leading to the final goal: the conciliation of humanity with itself and with nature. The economy therefore explains the economy and everything else, since 'religion, family, state, morality, science, art, etc., are simply particular modes of production and fall under its general law'; as such, they 'have no history, no development.'"



              In other words from a Marxist standpoint, talking of "capitalism" is meaningful only if you place it into the set of so-called "modes of production," that runs as follows:



              1. Primitive communism; 2. Ancient mode of production; 3. Feudalism; 4. Capitalism (divided into Early capitalism and Late capitalism; 5. Socialism (as the lower-stage of communism); 6. Communism



              (The Asiatic mode of production is supposed to be a variant between no.2 and no.3, and is localised). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production .



              This all seems very neat and nice, including a golden age in the past and a teleological projection.  Now, of course one can always take up any writing from any period of time, Marx included of course, but then they should be subjected to a critical analysis, in light of further development in our understanding of our own history and course of societal action.



              And that's why it's not very helpful, and certainly not very scientific, to adopt Marxism as a guide, i.e., something which has been put to the test of history, with an historical experiment running throughout the best part of last century, from which it has come out as a colossal failure--either by a collapse of its own society and the subsequent "return to capitalism" (USSR) or else, it has maintained most of the forms of communism while in practice also reverting to capitalism (China).



              I know that some have written that capitalism won the battle against communism, while in more sober terms one can simply say that communism ran out of steam; meanwhile "capitalism" remains a rather unspecified beast, meaning very different things to different people. Not to mention that it's being implemented in so many different ways that it's hard to use a single name to define it.



              Nazi Germany, FDR's USA, Militaristic Japan in the period leading up to WWII: were they all "capitalist" regimes? What about Saudi Arabia, Iran, today's Western democracies, Russia and China: Are they all also "capitalist"?


              JE comments:  Is it fruitful, or does it even make sense, to use Marx's notion of capitalism in an analysis of capitalism?  Luciano (Dondero) raises an excellent question in this critique of a fellow Luciano (Pellicani).  What does it mean to assume a default definition of capitalism--as in, any modern mode of production that is not socialism or communism?  I do not know, but remember that this WAIS discussion began with Marx as one of history's "usefully wrong" thinkers.

              Please login/register to reply or comment:

              • Pellicani's Take on Capitalism (Francisco Ramirez, USA 07/17/17 3:09 PM)
                The key to Pellicani's argument is that the medieval market cities were able to inject elements of rationality and dynamism into a stagnant feudal world only after they gained complete political autonomy. He parts with Marx because he does not think that it simply a matter of contradiction in the feudalist mode giving rise to a capitalist mode. He parts with Weber because he notes that early Calvinism was not all supportive of the acquisition spirit. But he thinks both Marx and Weber in comparing Europe with Asia open the door the what he sees as their hidden hypothesis: the rise of politically autonomous cities in the former but not the latter. A number of other scholars have made similar arguments emphasizing the political and not just the economic or the cultural.

                For purposes of my course it gives me a chance to say to students that you can think of the world as a capitalist economy, an inter-state system, and a global culture (my own work emphasizes transnational standards, norms, etc.). If you think WAIS, we owe to capitalism the technology that makes possible a virtual world of communication, one can locate participants in their national-states and assume some local expertise in matters local, but also some shared understandings of what constitutes civil and scholarly discourse. More often than not people disagree without being disagreeable or indulging in ad hominem attacks.


                JE comments:  One might conclude that Pellicani holds the model of the Italian city-states, such as Genoa and Venice, as the ideal breeding grounds for capitalism.  Yet these cities became eclipsed by northern and western Europe.  Does Pellicani address this shift?

                Please login/register to reply or comment:

                • Italy's City-States and the Rise of Capitalism (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 07/18/17 7:16 AM)
                  Commenting on the very interesting post of Francesco Ramirez, 17 July, our esteemed moderator refers to the Italian city states, such as Genoa and Venice, as the ideal breeding grounds for capitalism.

                  I believe he is (as usual) correct. Let us have a quick look at these city-states.


                  After the barbaric invasions the Repubbliche Marinare (really at that time repubblica was the equivalent of state) of Amalfi, Pisa, Genoa, Venice and Ragusa came into prosperity.


                  Amalfi was probably the first to have some power beginning in AD 839, and is famous for its sea codex "Tavole Amalfitane" (Tabula de Amalpha--Capitula et Ordinationes Curae Maritimae) which came out in the 11th century and was widely used in all the Mediterranean until the 16th century.


                  This republic was the first to disappear, being defeated by Pisa, then conquered by the Normans and finally destroyed by an earthquake in 1348. It is now a small tourist town.


                  Pisa came to power around AD 1000. It was initially allied with Genoa to expel the Saracens from the Tyrrenian Sea. But the alliance ended and Pisa was defeated by Genoa in the sea battle of the Meloria in 1284. Pisa's decline ensued, until 1406 when it became a subject of Florence.


                  Ragusa (now Dubrovnik) was founded in AD 614 by the inhabitants of Epidaurum after it was destroyed by the Avars. Ragusa developed only as an advanced town on the sea with a great fleet. At a certain point it had the largest fleet of big ships, and free commerce but no colonies. This was different from Genoa and Venice, which had colonies on the Black Sea and in the Central and Easter Mediterranean, including Constantinople.


                  Ragusa is famous for having abolished slavery in 1416 and officially shifting from Latin to Italian in 1472. From 1205 to 1358 it was under the influence of Venice. In 1492 it gave refuge to the Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain.


                  From 1526 Ragusa maintained its independence but had to pay a tribute to the Ottoman Empire, for such reason the Pope excused it from participating in the victorious sea battle of Lepanto (1571).  But it did participate in the Invincible Armada.


                  Ragusa, Genoa (AD 958) and Venice (AD 697) survived until the Napoleonic period. Ragusa was occupied by the Austro-Hungarian Empire which placed it within Croatia. Venice too ended under the Austro-Hungarian Empire while Genoa became part of the Savoy kingdom.


                  The Italian towns, which were ideal breeding grounds for capitalism, became eclipsed by northern and western Europe. Florence mostly due to the British default on its loans and for the startling stupidity of the Italians, who called in foreign powers to be involved in internal Italian disputes--for example, France's Charles VIII in 1494 and the deleterious meddling of the Papacy.


                  In specific reference to Genoa, Florence and Venice, we may even say that they were killed by their famous sons Cristoforo Colombo, Amerigo Vespucci, Giovanni da Verrazzano, Giovanni Caboto, etc., who with their enterprises moved the center of commerce and banks from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic at the same time that the Ottoman Empire starting 1453 closed the routes to the East.


                  I should add that Genoa is famous for its "Liber Gazarie" of 1316, a conditio sine qua non for commerce by ships and early capitalism, while Venice had it codex "Capitolare Nauticum." The extant copy is from 1256 but was already in force from two centuries earlier


                  Other smaller Italian Repubbliche Marinare were Ancona, Gaeta and Noli.


                  A curiosity: when the Venetian fleet was defeated by Genoa in front of Curzola in 1298, among the Venetian prisoners was Marco Polo, who in a Genoese jail dictated "Il Milione" to Rustichello da Pisa.


                  JE comments: I teach this stuff, but I never phrased it in exactly these terms: the passing of commercial hegemony from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic was the work of Italian mariners.


                  Think of how history would have played out if the Italian city-states had not fought among themselves. Curiously, this endless internecine squabbling was antithetical to the conducting of business, which was, or should have been, the business of the Maritime Republics.

                  Please login/register to reply or comment:



              • Genesis of Capitalism (Timothy Brown, USA 07/18/17 4:29 AM)
                If the genesis of capitalism dates back only to Marx, what was it before it existed? (See Luciano Dondero, 16 July.)

                Personally, I find that trying to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin a foolish waste of time, because the pin and the angels are both invisible to the human eye and mind--hidden, even from the speakers, behind smokescreens of discourse.


                My own view is that there are only two visible difference between capitalism and Marxism. Under capitalism the capitalists are richest while the "masses" usually do OK and can at least voice their opinions without fear of the consequences, whereas under the Marxoid version of "socialism," the softer more politically palatable word behind which Marxists hide what they really think, it's the Marxists who get rich and the "masses" get the leftovers.


                My source of support for this thesis is, first, the several decades during which I did more or less daily politico-economic analyses of countries governed under one or the other systems: Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam and Mao's China (5 years) and Castro's Cuba and Ortega's Nicaragua (12) on the Marxoid side and 14 on the capitalist side--France (5), the Netherlands (4), the EU, OECD, IBRD (5), eight years of post-Foreign Service doctoral research and analysis and another 15 or so as an observer trying my best to understand just what the hell I'd been doing during all those years.


                My conclusion in a nutshell: In every instance the words of the political and economic discourse, across the entire spectrum from far left to far right, were just smoke screens behind which political activists were hiding. often even from themselves, their true objectives--power and wealth--not just from those they sought to rule but more often than not, hiding them from themselves and their own consciences behind smoke screens of code-words.


                JE comments:  In capitalism, Man exploits Man.  In communism, it's the other way around.  (Who can track down the genesis of that quote?  I believe it's an old Soviet anekdot.)


                What is the etymology of capitalism?  Most sources say it was a coinage of the French Revolution, where capitaliste was a label of derision for the wealthy.  Other sources claim an earlier origin, in the 17th century.  Marx no doubt is responsible for the wider acceptance of the term, as juxtaposed against socialism/communism.

                Please login/register to reply or comment:

                • Trump Bailed Out by Deutsche Bank? From Ric Mauricio (John Eipper, USA 07/21/17 5:21 AM)

                  Ric Mauricio writes:



                  I really like Timothy Brown's quote of July 18th: "I find that trying to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin a foolish waste of time, because the pin and the angels are both invisible to the human eye and mind--hidden, even from the speakers, behind smokescreens of discourse."


                  That is a keeper.


                  I think I can see the head of the pin, but, of course, not the angels. In fact, has anyone seen an angel lately? Yes, there are people who approach angelic status, but are they angels? One time, in a discussion, I mentioned that in my afterlife, that I wanted angel wings. Of course, me being me, there is an impossibility of earning that status, but I figured if the Almighty can do anything, s/he could bestow upon me angel wings and I can come back to earth and help people. Would be pretty cool. I mean, c'mon, I would be really bored just lounging around heaven (provided I end up there) and doing nothing.


                  But enough about angels. Let's talk about the latest news in relation to capitalism. Trump's business dealings. Seems that the only bank who was willing to lend Mr. Trump the money to save his holdings was none other than the Deutsche Bank. Now the news is that because Deutsche Bank was complicit in laundering Russian funds (they paid huge penalties), that perhaps there is a Russian connection with Trump.


                  Aha, I had asked in a previous post what country the largest shareholder of Deutsche Bank. JE guessed Qatar, which was close. It is Saudi Arabia through an entity in the Cayman Islands. So you see, there is misdirection and they are looking for the wrong connection. Perhaps there is a possible Saudi connection with the President, which is why they gave him that medal. Which is why, even though most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia (and funded through a Saudi ... bin Laden), there is no travel ban from that country.


                  JE comments:  There's a stench wafting from Trump's Deutsche Bank connection, but (as always) it stops short of a smoking gun.  Trump's "I am a businessman" smokescreen gives him an immunity in the US imaginary.  Remember what the business of America is?  Business.  (Calvin Coolidge)

                  Please login/register to reply or comment:


                • Marx and the Genesis of Capitalism; on Historical Periods (Luciano Dondero, Italy 07/30/17 8:49 AM)
                  Timothy Brown (18 July) raised a very pertinent question: "If the genesis of capitalism dates back only to Marx, what was it before it existed?"

                  Unfortunately, while the question is straightforward enough, trying to formulate a coherent answer is not so easy.


                  As far as I can tell, Marx's role has been that of shaping (altering, distorting, whatever) the meaning and understanding of certain concepts and words to the point where they can no longer be used, except following his own line of reasoning.  "Capitalism" being a case in point. And I very much doubt that this makes Marx someone who was "usefully wrong," as it has been raised in this discussion.


                  Is it possible to define broad periods of human history using synthetic descriptions and lumping together different times and different places under specific rubrics?


                  Marx and Engels did it, following in the footsteps of their mentor Hegel. So did many others before them. There is the classical division into a Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age, Heroic Age and Iron Age, which goes back to Hesiod. There is Saint Paul's theological division of history into three ages: the first before the age of Moses (under nature); the second under Mosaic law (under law); the third in the age of Christ (under grace). Then there is another, and much used to this day, thrichotomy: "ancient, medieval, modern."  This classification, as Bernard Lewis pointed out, "is European; it was invented by Europeans in Europe to classify the different phases of European history; and like so many other things from Europe, it was either adopted by or imposed upon the rest of the world, whether appropriate or not."


                  Any of these periodization may be convenient for a quick survey of mankind's motion through the ages, or for any other purpose. However, these are all in some way ideologically based schemes, and typically they are not: (A) scientifically correct, (B) helpful in achieving a better understanding of the thing under examination, (C) useful to foresee and/or influence the future course of our existence, as societies and as a species.


                  A more scientific approach is required in order to study the historical process in the course of human development. It must start far earlier than recorded history, using information from fossilized human remains; from geological and biological metamorphoses; and from traces of material production, artificial habitats, social organization, and culture. Some of these can help to outline a timeline of human evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution ).


                  Among modern attempts at periodization based on scientific research (and not on ideology, like those of the post-modernist crowd) there is the "cultural evolution" model (http://www.hollowtop.com/spt_html/Cultural_Evolution.htm ) which gives us Bands, Tribes, Chiefdoms, Divine Kingdoms, Agricultural States, Industrial States.


                  Another variant focuses on the economic aspects: hunting-gathering, agriculture (farming and animal-husbandry), barbarism, civilization.  Of course, civilization is a very broad term, covering several millennia, and that would lead us back to more splitting and defining.


                  What's the purpose of all this?


                  Let me underline Timothy Brown's conclusion, which I find relevant here: "In every instance the words of the political and economic discourse, across the entire spectrum from far left to far right, were just smoke screens behind which political activists were hiding, often even from themselves, their true objectives--power and wealth--not just from those they sought to rule but more often than not, hiding them from themselves and their own consciences behind smoke screens of code-words."


                  What we are dealing with here, the main subjects who are involved in trying to shape their own destinies and society as well, are in actual fact human beings, who have a wide range of possible alternatives to their disposal, but within very severe and concrete constraints. And no matter how we call them (or they themselves do), they have a lot more in common between themselves than things that set them apart. There are indeed "cultural universals" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_universal )


                  Now, we tend to attribute a lot more importance to the choices we make than these really have in shaping the world around us: how many have tried (and failed) in dictating rules for economics, for politics, for morality, and so on and so forth?


                  Yet surely the choice that men (and women) make are not irrelevant or meaningless or indifferent ones.


                  If we break down the basic defining criteria in a number of democratic societies in the "West" (broadly defined, because India, Japan and Australia/NZ are geographically "Eastern" in a conventional sense), we will definitely find that they share some of those criteria with other contemporary (and past) societies, while these criteria may be loathed/rejected by countries whose population also numbers in the billions.


                  Is it possible and appropriate to elevate some of these criteria above all others?


                  Let's consider, for instance, that some of those criteria that we may now regard as "given," are in actual fact acquisitions of recent decades: notably legal equality for women and men, and for non-whites and whites. This even in Western Europe and the USA.


                  Is it possible to determine which freedoms are the fundamental ones?


                  And what should happen whenever different freedoms, or their implementation by different individuals or ethnic group, enter into conflict? Who regulates those? And how? Which criteria are "just"? Which ones are "lesser evilist"? And which ones are "plain wrong"? And how do they fit in the "natural" spectrum? And in the historical evolution of human society?


                  It seems to me that an attempt needs to be made to try to provide answers that would lead to a more precise and complete understanding of what is meant by a "natural" state of things in contemporary society, whatever label we may want to use: capitalism, free society, the West, democracy in the 21st century, and so on.



                  PS: In the end, I did not answer Tim's question.


                  JE comments:  Luciano Dondero raises a lot of interesting questions.  First, how useful are the so-called "cultural universals"?  Click on the Wikipedia link above, and you'll see items like language, kinship terms, colors, and sexual jealousy.  Yes, but different cultures each attribute their meanings to all of these.  Take death rituals.  We all die, but...?


                  Likewise with historical periodization.  The more we delve into the "pre-modern," "ancient," "post-modern," and the like, the more we see that there isn't much there, there.


                  WAISer thoughts?


                  Please login/register to reply or comment:

                  • Terrorism, Ideology, and Identity Politics: a 2002 Talk (Timothy Brown, USA 08/03/17 6:54 AM)
                    I very much appreciate Luciano Dondero's thoughtful comments (although I hope he's not related to Mrs. Dondero, my high school algebra teacher, who gave me a D).

                    Luciano's comments carry me back to my opening comments during Opening Plenary Session II at the 2002 World Media Center meeting in Washington. Feel free not to read it since, in essence, my comments were directed at the challenge posed by the conflict between popularly believed public narratives and what that in fact we've actually been facing for decades. This has been very different from what we--or at least most of us--have been misled by the dominant popular dialogue to believe.


                    Since it may well be the longest quote ever posted by WAIS, if our esteemed coordinator chooses to include all of it, I'll forgive you for not reading it.


                    An Eye on Consequences: The Military and Security Threat


                    Thank you, Robert. I think I will begin by telling war stories instead of what I was thinking about discussing. Actually, there is a considerable continuity between being in the Marine Corps and being in the diplomatic corps, since they are the two premier instruments of US foreign policy. But in any case, what I would like each of you to do for a moment is to pretend you are a member of a tribe, because you are and don't know it. You are members of the media clan, of the globalization tribe, and we are here because our tribe is under attack by, among others, members of the anti-globalization tribe right across the river from us who are trying even as we speak to close down one of our capital cities. And I use that image deliberately because we are those who have benefited from globalization, all of us, myself among you. We may not think we have benefited as much as we should have. But we have all benefited while many others haven't, and that is one of the sources of the tensions we need to keep in mind when we talk about what we are doing here.


                    Once, sitting in a coffee shop of a very, very nice hotel in a Central American capital, I was talking to someone I'd come to know quite well after leaving the diplomatic service who had been the commander of a communist revolutionary army. I had been interviewing him, and had asked him, "How did you pay for your war?", an important question because such enterprises are much more expensive than the public thinks they are. He told me that a revolutionary effort is a very expensive proposition: "So we knew that we had to have a war chest even before we started our war, which ended up costing about $100 million a year for 14 or 15 years." As to how they paid for it, he explained, "We started out trying to rob banks but found out there were two problems with this. One, there wasn't enough money in the banks and two, they had guards who shot back, which wasn't what we had in mind." (I might add at this point that I have never met anyone quite as capitalist as some former communist revolutionaries.) So he said they decided to use a technique known as "revolutionary recuperations." For those of you who are familiar with the Mafia, this is a form of extortion, or protection racket. He said that this worked pretty well. For example: "Since we had sympathizers who were workers in factories we were able to threaten factory owners. Give us 10 percent of what you earn: You really don't want sugar in the gas tanks of your trucks." But that still didn't produce enough money.


                    Finally, he explained, since they were looking for ways to obtain money on their own and didn't want to go into the debt of the Russians or the Cubans early in the revolution, they decided to try some kidnappings. I asked him how well this worked for them. (As an aside, it needs to be understood that when talking with veterans of such movements it is important not to be judgmental.) He then explained that, as they were trying to decide how to get a kidnapping campaign started, they soon realized, after thinking about the idea for a while, that if you're going to kidnap someone there's no use kidnapping just anybody. It has to be someone who has money, or who has money in the family, in their company, or whatever. And that was not all. You also have to know their movements, their character, and something about their family. In other words, organizing a kidnapping involves a very major intelligence undertaking, especially for a small group.


                    Then I asked: "So what did you do?" He replied: "Well, I started out looking for someone and then made a recommendation. The others in the group looked at me and said, but that's your best friend. Well, yes, but I know the family well, I know they have money, I've had dinner at their house quite a few times and know they will probably pay up. So we kidnapped him and sent a ransom note to the family. But to my surprise the family didn't respond. Suddenly the question became: What do we do now? We have him and he knows who we are." Up to that point the whole thing had seemed almost a lark. But that very quickly changed. "Now, we had to convince them. But how? Another note, nothing; another note, nothing. Finally, we decided we had no choice. So we cut off one of his fingers, put it in an envelope and sent it to his mother. But still they didn't pay. Finally, out of desperation, we sat him in a chair and turned a video camera on him (actually a movie camera in those days) and began torturing him." They filmed what they were doing, complete with sound, and sent the film to his mother. At this point the family paid, but all they could do was deliver their victim's body to the family. They had not realized just how easy it is to kill a human being. In terms of money collected to pay for their revolution, that was their first big coup and became their main initial source of income. During their entire campaign of kidnapping, my friend estimated that they managed to collect about $187 million in 1960s dollars in ransom. I went on to ask him how he had felt about the incident and how he had justified it. I was not as emotional with him as I am with you now because my purpose was not to condemn but to understand his thinking at that time. He said: "Now I wish we hadn't done it. But you have to understand. In a war like ours, the end justifies the means and there is no such thing as an innocent civilian." In other words, and I won't say who I am echoing, "those who are not with us are against us."


                    That is what we are up against, and I think that most of the people here have been much too optimistic about how easy this [the war on terrorism] is going to be. In the 16th century we had wars of conquest and plunder, and then we moved in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries into wars of conquest and colonization, and to maintaining control of colonies in order to exploit them. Many of you here today are from places that were subjugated by empires during that period and now live with the consequences of that era.


                    During the 20th century, which we luckily just escaped without being incinerated-I love the Spanish term for this, carbonizado, or turned to carbon-by nuclear weapons, there were three drives behind violence. One was ideology, the second was theology, and the third was identity, the latter mostly in terms of ethnicity and nationalism. During that century, an estimated 350 million persons died in politically motivated violence, a number equal to the entire population of modern Western Europe. The 20th century also saw the remaking of the world's map, particularly after the fall of the colonial empires, with identity the main drive behind the changes that took place. Identity was also one of the two major disabling anomalies that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union-failure to handle the nationalities issue well. It was a problem they never did really come to grips with.


                    And if we're not very careful, the 21st century will prove to be much, much bloodier than the 20th. The reason I'm prepared to say this is that we have now peeled away the 20th century's top layer of ideological confrontations, which was, in all honesty, the thinnest of the three to begin with, not the thickest. We even managed to peel away, to a certain extent, the second layer of theological drives behind some of that century's armed violence, and I know that this claim runs contrary to a lot of what's been said here. But what's happened is that theology has come to be folded into identity, so that religion has become a source of self and identity that is increasingly wrapped up inside a core group identity. That's one of the main reasons why I think this century is exceptionally dangerous, because conflicts driven by identity are the deepest and most dangerous of all.


                    The second reason I'm prepared to say this century may well be bloodier than the last one is because of the availability of weapons of mass destruction in smaller and smaller packages with greater and greater potential to cause damage. As horrible as it is, nuclear war is not the most dangerous kind of weapon of mass destruction we face. Nor are chemical weapons. The most dangerous ones we face are biological weapons, and they have not even been mentioned here yet today. They can kill far more people far faster and can go quickly across national borders, all things the other forms of weapons cannot do. We may be able to vaccinate the American population against smallpox, but how do we keep smallpox from getting into Mexico? Or crossing the Atlantic? Or crossing the Pacific? So, even if we ourselves are safe, what happens to everybody else? Because once it's loose, it's like the gates of hell have been opened, as someone recently said.


                    What is this identity I'm talking about? We all have a variety of identities. But I would suggest that we each have a core identity as members of a group that we do not fully recognize until we think about it a bit. There are certain elements you can look for when you're looking for a core group identity. These make up what I consider to be a sort of a model for analysis. This model doesn't give specific answers to any specific questions, but it can be broadly applied when thinking about identity issues. First, your core group identity has a defined territory. This is usually geographic, although it can be theological or ideological, as we saw during the Cold War and now are seeing in the Islamic world, or in the Catholic world for that matter. There will be a common language, usually a mother tongue, or at least a common language of discourse, a shared way of talking to one another. As an example, the most powerful tribe in the world today is the international business community and they talk the same language, which nobody else can understand as well as they can. You will also find a shared history, a shared culture, usually a shared religion, and a shared belief in a value system. And, above all, you will find a shared sense of "us versus them." Identity is a little bit like pornography. It may be hard to define precisely, but you know it when you see it. Those who share an identity can readily tell the difference between "us" and "them" and, when conflicts arise, they almost invariably think not just in terms of "Us and Them" but in terms of "Us versus Them."


                    How does such an identity develop? And here I part company with much of the more accepted science. I think John Locke was wrong. We are not born tabula rasa, that is to say as blank slates on which life then writes. Instead we inherit much of our behavior from our ancestors. What does the number 32,768 mean to any of you, other than the fact that it's probably bigger than your annual salary? That's the number of your grandparents who were alive in 1702, about 300 years ago, and you are the product of genes of that many people just in the last three centuries, and what you are is a result of what they were. Then, once you're born into a family we all have mothers who become the main sources of our beliefs and values, our language, and most of our initial fund of basic knowledge. True, the father is also involved and does some of this as well, if he's around, and so do our siblings. But Mother comes first and, by the time you are eight or nine years old and ready to venture into the larger world beyond, your basic individual identity has already been formed. Collectively, this process also creates a group identity. It is only at this point that secondary communicators such as the media get their shot. And by then it's too late. All you of the media can do is do what the schools, or playmates, or workmates can also do, and that is to work on this already formed identity and attempt to sway it a bit one way or another. But in the long run you cannot permanently change it.


                    I liken the identity process to computers. Genetically we come into the world as little IBMs or Apples, and then our family makes us little Word Perfects or whatever, (Word Imperfect in my case.) It's not until after this has been done that you can download any serious software. Has anybody ever tried to load Mac software onto an IBM and seen just how spectacular the crash can be? So you can only pass along to individuals and groups with formed identities programs, or "software," that is compatible with the already existing identity systems of their culture. And if you don't respect this basic rule, you're guaranteed sooner or later to have it blow up in your face, as it did in the face of the Soviet revolution.


                    I almost subtitled this presentation, and pardon the vulgarity but I'm a former Marine sergeant: "When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your mission is to drain the swamp." We have been talking about the alligators of terrorism today a lot more than about the swamp. But it is the swamp that spawns them, and when it comes to identity conflicts, I would argue that the higher the perceived threat to any element of an identity, and most especially if it is the identity itself that members of the group believe is being threatened, the more violent the potential reaction. It is when people feel threatened that they are most likely to respond violently, either to agitation by someone who knows how to exploit the reactions elicited by such a threat or because they themselves come to believe that either they must act or they will lose an important part of their identity. If a perceived challenge, or threat, is purely at the societal level, it's easier to handle than if it's at some deeper level. And identity is the deepest level of all. So if we are now in the middle of a clash of civilizations, in Huntington's words, we are in about as deeply as we can be. And I think that much of what we're talking about here is an identity clash between Islam-or certainly at least fundamentalist Islam-and the Western world and, frankly, especially its fundamentalist Christians, although the latter are much less prone to violence.


                    As to the organization of armed political groups to engage in violence and terrorism, let's imagine for the moment that we're launching a political process that may, in fact, eventually lead to the use of terror tactics. Initially, we probably have no intention of using such tactics. Our first step will probably be to organize a political movement with a political objective and try to attain those objectives without violence. If this fails, we may then begin to use organized civil violence-demonstrations, strikes, and so forth-to gain our goals. Then, if this also fails and we feel twice frustrated in our efforts to achieve our objectives, we may begin to use organized, armed violence. It is at this point in a political process that a revolutionary or guerrilla force comes into being. And normally, it is not until we become convinced that even this will not gain for us our political objectives that we will resort to terrorism. In other words, terrorism is usually a tactic of last, not first, resort.


                    Put another way, terrorism is an extreme political act taken for a political reason, not an act independent of politics. And, contrary to the conventional wisdom, it is neither the act of just a few persons nor is it cheap. As I tell my students, the first thing you find out when you choose to engage in armed political violence, especially in terrorism, is that you need money, lots of money. If you think oil runs the Western economies, I can guarantee you that it is money, and lots of it, that fuels terrorist and other violent organizations. For the revolutionary movement of my friend, the $187 million war chest they built up was just seed capital. Over its lifetime, his revolutionary movement actually cost at least $600 million to run, and probably more than twice that amount. And even at that it was cheaper than a number of other revolutions that were going on in neighboring countries at the same time.


                    Another thing you quickly discover is that secrecy and security are absolutely vital. You must protect your secrets, just as it's your enemy's job to find out yours while protecting his own. I suspect that Bill Gertz will get into this and perhaps explain just how complicated this can be. You also find out you need safe havens, because nobody can stay in the field for 365 days a year under physical threat of destruction at any moment. The stress is just too great. You just have to get out once in a while and get some rest, some training, and recover from whatever parasites or wounds you might have. And I would argue in this regard that one of the real intents, if not a publicly stated one, of going after Iraq is to make of that country and its regime an object lesson: Henceforth anyone or any country that harbors terrorists risks being destroyed, or having its regime destroyed.


                    You will also find that to succeed you need sympathizers and active supporters and lots of them. The management model I use to describe the organization of an armed political group that uses terrorism as a tactic is that of a pyramid with levels I will run through quickly, except for one. The most important level is that of the soil on which it rests. In the case of any violent movement that uses terror tactics this means, at the very least, a layer of indifferent, unengaged, or intimidated general public. Public apathy is one of the best allies of people who are prepared to use violence. Then, at the bottom of the pyramid itself lies a group of political sympathizers who become the foundation on which the rest of the pyramid of terror will be built. Usually they are just sympathetic and little more. But it is from this group that the next level of the pyramid, a system of organized active supporters, is drawn and molded into a yet higher layer of this pyramid, a system of clandestine support cells, as has been discussed here by other participants before me.


                    Neither a guerrilla force nor a guerrilla force that uses terror can survive and be effective without a large, organized, and active corps of unarmed but guilty civilians to support it. These civilians are indispensable to its success. They are the ones who collect the money; provide food, clothing, housing, and weapons; and help it with training, logistics, and intelligence activities. They also do most of the proselytizing and recruiting, provide the armed elements with early warning, run escape and evasion routes, in short do all the things that are essential to the survival and operations of any armed violent force. I have managed to get access to the internal documents of two guerrilla forces and found this laid out clearly. These documents clearly show that a system of clandestine support cells is not an accident of nature but the fruit of a very carefully thought-out organizational effort. While there are, of course, important variations from group to group, in every case I studied these cells were carefully compartmentalized from one another for reasons of security. It is on this layer of clandestine support system of compartmentalized cells that the structures above depend entirely.


                    Just above the clandestine support cells lies what is probably the most vulnerable layer in the organizational pyramid. In Latin America, those who are active at this level are called the correos. Elsewhere they may be called the liaisons or the runners. Regardless, they serve as the grease between the organized armed activists in the next layer above them and the essential support systems that sustain them from below. It is their role to insulate the cells below from the armed activists above by serving as the primary link between the cells of activists who are providing the support and those carrying guns. So, it is usually only above this layer of correos that you will find armed combatants. And if a movement decides to use terrorism as a tactic- and many don't because terrorism is a double-edged sword-those who engage in it will normally be drawn from the ranks of these combatants.


                    Just how many people may be involved in such a movement, or one of these pyramids of terror? I cannot speak from evidence as to al-Qaeda, or the Red Brigades, or other such groups. But, in terms of the three organized armed groups whose central archives I have been able to look at, for every soldier in the field they had about 20 to 30 active supporters in clandestine support cells, and for every active member of such a cell they had 15 to 20 sympathizers keeping their secrets, providing them with the essentials without which they could not have engaged effectively in violence, and making sure they had a sympathetic base population within which they could hide. This is, then, the nature and size of the seas in which, as Mao Zedong labeled them, guerrillas and revolutionaries swim.


                    So do the math. If there are 10,000 active al-Qaeda combatants, they probably have 200,000 to 250,000 supporters in clandestine cells and as many as 2 to 5 million sympathizers who help support them. These are not small organizations, and we are fooling ourselves if we try to pretend that they are. Let me go even further. As it is currently being fought, I believe we are going after the wrong target. In the longer run, killing or capturing terrorists one at a time is about as effective as pulling the tails off salamanders-the swamp of political activism that spawned them will just produce another one and, in any case, the terrorists themselves are merely a fraction of all those who are prepared to use violence and engage in extremist tactics. So, as long as the movement that produces them remains active and dedicated to its political objectives, it will simply produce more.


                    Therefore, in my view the most important target in the war on terrorism is not the terrorists themselves. The main mission must be to convince or neutralize their base of active sympathizers to stop supporting them. So there are several more important targets. The primary targets must be a terrorist organization's active support base of clandestine cells, its correos, or guides or liaison agents, and its non-terrorist combatants, because they are the ones who produce and support the terrorists. I will not try to go into detail here on how one can go about doing this. Obviously in 20 minutes that cannot be done. But there are historical cases where this has been accomplished and success has led to the ending of a particular armed, violent political movement that used terror tactics. So it is far from impossible.


                    But what I can and will argue here in the few moments I have left is that, unless we keep our eyes on the larger ball we have about as much chance of winning the war on terrorism as we do of winning the war on drugs. And that's a war we have already lost, as far as I can tell. So, our longer-term mission must be to drain the swamps from which the terrorist alligators emerge. True, in the short run we have no choice but to hold back the alligators. But if that's all we do, in the long run we are bound to fail.


                    JE comments:  I read every word, and am struck by how current (prescient) Tim Brown was in 2002.  Gosh, that's 15 years ago.  That conflicts based on ideology have been completely replaced by "identity" clashes is now an indisputable fact.  What role does ideology play in the current US-Russia relationship, or the US-China relationship for that matter?  I can think of none.  Further, Tim correctly predicted that the gulf between the "haves" and the "have-nots" of globalization would drive societies apart.  Just see what happened in 2016 in the UK and the US.


                    One of the two high schools in Royal Oak was named Dondero--perhaps George A. Dondero was another relative of Luciano?  Some years back the two schools were consolidated into one, with the uninspired name of Royal Oak HS.


                    Two of Dondero's most famous alums:  radical activist (and former Mr Jane Fonda) Tom Hayden, and Eagles frontman Glenn Frey.  Both died last year (2016).


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


                    Please login/register to reply or comment:




              • Economy of Nazi Germany (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 07/20/17 4:56 AM)
                In his excellent and provocative post of July 16th, Luciano Dondero asked: "Nazi Germany, FDR's USA, militaristic Japan--were they all 'capitalist' regimes?"

                I am not versed enough in economics to participate in a learned discussion here; however I have some observations:


                Nazi Germany was not a capitalist regime, but rather an example of national (not Marxist) socialism (we may add the Fascist Socializzazione) which.may economically triumph even against considerable obstacles.


                Hitler came to power in 1933, finding more than 6 million, over 30%, of the German work force unemployed, but in 1937 he opened the doors to immigration because there were no more available German workers.


                Some Italians, attracted by the favorable working conditions, high wages and social benefits, went to Germany. When Mussolini visited Germany and was presented with huge Nazi parades, the Italians joined the parade with their black shirts for a special homage to Il Duce. Apparently the Nazi high brass was not very enthusiastic.


                Among the volunteer immigrants was a neighour living in the apartment just below mine. He went to Germany very proudly with his black shirt, but after the end of the war he returned and claimed that he was a victim of deportation. He was one of many who made this claim.


                Hitler created a National Central Bank instead of the usual Central Bank owned by other private banks. This Bank did not exchange marks for gold but in exchange for work. Furthermore the commercial exchange was not priced in gold (pounds or dollars) through the various usurious banks, but through direct exchange of products, therefore there was no debt and no deficit.


                The controversial (well anyone that is not, a priori, claiming to be a follower of the new Western religion on the devil Hitler is controversial or unreliable; of course I am a believer) Henry Makow wrote, "This was the main reason why Hitler should have been stopped." The British economist Henry C.K. Liu wrote: "Through a policy of independent sovereign monetary policy and a program of public works which granted full occupation the Third Reich transformed a bankrupt Germany into the strongest economy in Europe, in only four years prior to starting the expenses of armament."


                Another controversial historian, Mark Weber, in his Historia y Cultura del III Reich...


                http://esencianacional.blogspot.com/2016/11/como-hitler-enfrento-el-desempleo-y.html


                ...has written an interesting and very detailed review on the subject.


                The conditions of the German workers and of the average citizen following the example of Fascist Italy were extremely good, with high wages and considerable fringe benefits for families, children, having great open museums, concerts, sponsored vacations, even cruises on special workers' vessels, medical assistance for all, etc.


                David Lloyd George, after visiting Germany in 1936, wrote a long article of praise, closing it with the following: "Yes, Heil Hitler, I myself say that, because for truth he is a great man."


                The late historian John Toland rightly wrote: "If Hitler had died in 1937, without any doubt he would be considered one of the greatest men of German history."


                JE comments: If only Hitler had died in 1937.  Then we'd have had the chance to test Toland's hypothesis.  As for Mark Weber, he certainly is controversial:  Weber is (or was) an outspoken Holocaust denier, although paradoxically, he later would "deny" Holocaust denial, which made him a pariah even among fellow deniers.  (This per Wikipedia.)


                I always understood that Hitler just put Germany's unemployed in the army. This is an oversimplification, but some years back WAIS addressed the topic of the so-called Nazi economic recovery. It's complicated, and more nuanced studies suggest that the Nazi economy was not as healthy as apologists claim. One scholar goes so far as to argue that Germans were gradually starving under Hitler (pre-1939), and were materially worse off than during the desperate 1920s and early '30s. Cameron Sawyer's discussion from 2010 gives a good overview:


                http://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=48655&objectTypeId=42905&topicId=27


                Toland's Hitler biography was not without critics.  See this review:


                https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/adolf-hitler-by-john-toland/

                Please login/register to reply or comment:

                • If Hitler Had Died in 1937... (Carmen Negrin, -France 07/20/17 2:11 PM)
                  In response to Eugenio Battaglia (20 July), it would have been even better if Hitler had died in 1936 before invading Spain with Mussolini! My family would still be in Spain, all the intelligentsia that benefited Mexico and other Latin American countries would have also stayed and helped their own country develop.

                  Maybe Eugenio can tell us about this new law being discussed in Italy about forbidding and reprimanding any praise to Mussolini including on Internet.


                  JE comments: I'm especially interested in Eugenio's response to the second paragraph. WAIS has repeatedly published Mussolini praise from Eugenio. As editor, might I someday face prosecution in Italy? Note the disclaimer appended to every WAIS post:


                  The views expressed in this posting are of the author only and may not necessarily reflect the official viewpoint of the WAIS organization.

                  Please login/register to reply or comment:

                  • Anti-Mussolini Laws in Italy (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 07/22/17 8:46 AM)
                    Commenting on Carmen Negrín's post of July 20th, our esteemed moderator asked me: As editor, might I someday face prosecution in Italy for having published Eugenio Battaglia's praises of Mussolini?

                    I would say "NO," and that the disclaimer should be enough defense.


                    After all I am not praising Mussolini per se in my posts.  I am relating actual facts.


                    For instance, it is a fact if I write about the earthquake of 23 July 1930 in Irpinia, magnitude 6.7 with 1404 deaths.  The reconstruction went very well, including a savings of 500,000 lire from the original budget with the delivery of the new houses on 28 October 1930, 3746 brand new and 5190 repaired.  Contrast this with the earthquake in central Italy on 23 August 2016. Little rebuilding has been done until the present. Just yesterday the Mayor of Amatrice was on television asking at least for the removal of rubble from the streets. In citing the above there are no exclamations of Viva il Duce, maybe only a denunciation of the present government's incompetence. Admittedly, the locations of new housing in Amatrice have been identified and a provisional building for four restaurants should be ready within days, although the mayor is still working out of a container. The inhabitants, unfortunately, are still scattered around without rebuilt housing.


                    The first statute against Fascism is in Italy's unconditional surrender of 1943. It was then confirmed by the article 17 of the Peace Treaty (Diktat).  The previous article 16 prohibits acting against those who from 10 June 1940 until 8 September 1943 showed "liking" (treason) favorable to the Allies.


                    The Italian Constitution of 1948 has a "transitional disposition" Article 12, against Fascism.  Two other laws followed: Scelba 1952 and Mancino 1993.


                    The present uproar about Mussolini started at a beach in Venice, extremely popular and well run, which had some photos of Mussolini on display. Furthermore, the Left is presently in political trouble and when the Reds are in these conditions their only hope to distract the public is a good revival of antifascism, even if Mussolini died 72 years ago and with him Fascism came to an end.


                    The most ridiculous proposals are appearing, such as destroying buildings built during Fascism, checking all emails or jailing a guy who places democracy in jeopardy by lighting up a cigarette with Mussolini-themed lighter.


                    By the way, up to now the "saluto romano" was not considered a crime if made in a cemetery during the commemoration of a fallen person, even if he was a fascist, but it may be considered a crime if done in other circumstances.


                    To conclude, I do not believe that there will be enough time to pass the new law in the two Parliamentary chambers prior to next spring's elections. Nor does it look like the numbers are in favour


                    That is all for now from Italy--lay, democratic and antifascist born from the resistance and formed by the constitution.


                    JE comments:  Have there been any convictions under the existing anti-Mussolini laws, say in the last 25 years?

                    Please login/register to reply or comment:

                    • Prosecutions of Mussolini Apologists in Italy (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 07/23/17 5:12 AM)
                      Regarding prosecutions in Italy for pro-Mussolini or Fascist views, there have been several cases of convictions and the dissolution of some small political groups.

                      In Milan in 2015, 16 members of Casa Pound honoring Sergio Ramelli and Enrico Pedenovi (both young MSI members killed by the Reds in the 1970s) and Carlo Borsani (a gold medal recipient blinded in a war injury and killed by the partisans in 1945) were sentenced to one month in jail and a 250-euro fine in favor of ANPI (Associazione Nazionali Partigiani Italiani--communists) for giving the "saluto Romano" and other "fascist" gestures.


                      The mayor and his aldermen of the town of Affile are presently facing prosecution with a possible sentence of two years' imprisonment for having allowed the construction of a "mausoleum" (large tomb) dedicated to Marechal Graziani.


                      In Bolzano in 2010, the local leader of Casa Pound (the best-known group, inspired by the social doctrine of the great poet Ezra Pound) attended a hockey match wearing a shirt with a photo of Mussolini. For that he was sentenced to two months in jail.


                      Note: generally, for sentences of three years or less, nobody in Italy really goes to jail. Rather, incarceration is substituted by some alternative punishment.


                      Anyway do not worry.  The Italian government ensures that Italy remains a good colony of the Empire, ready to supply cannon fodder for its various wars and to support any self-defeating sanction. But overall it is extremely ready to fight Fascism even it is a Saluto romano or a photo of Mussolini hidden in a closet.



                      JE comments:  These prosecutions seem to be of a symbolic nature, which begs the question:  doesn't all this attention actually motivate the Mussolini apologists?

                      Please login/register to reply or comment:

                      • What is Meant by "Reds"? (Carmen Negrin, -France 07/23/17 3:13 PM)
                        I wonder what Eugenio Battaglia (July 23rd) refers to when he says "the Reds." I don't know of any party of that name.

                        JE comments: I believe Eugenio meant the Red Brigades (Brigate Rosse), who were at war with the neo-fascist MSI (among others) in the 1970s.  Carmen Negrín's question does raise a question in my mind:  have any leftist political groups self-identified as "Reds" since the demise of Italy's Brigate?

                        Please login/register to reply or comment:

                        • Who are the Reds? (Roy Domenico, USA 07/24/17 10:17 AM)
                          Regarding the question of "who were the reds," I think that Carmen Negrín (23 July) was pulling our legs a bit.

                          The Reds are communists--I would think that's obvious. The two neo-Fascists mentioned by Eugenio Battaglia may have been killed by the Red Brigades; but the Red Brigades positioned themselves against the Italian Communist Party (PCI) which, they felt, had betrayed the cause by dealing with the Christian Democrats.


                          Look at the flag of the Soviet Union. Look at China's flag today. Its message is that "the East is Red."


                          JE comments:  Flag below.  In the generation since the fall of the USSR, "red" has lost its original bogeyman meaning, at least in the US.  The Red States are now as red-blooded as, well, red meat.  When my classes start in a month, I will quiz my students:  what does the expression "Better dead than red" mean to you?  I'll be sure to report back.


                          I've also heard (again) from both Carmen Negrín and Eugenio Battaglia.  Stand by.


                          Please login/register to reply or comment:

                          • Reds and Red States (Timothy Brown, USA 07/25/17 6:21 AM)
                            I beg to quibble with Roy Domenico (July 24th).

                            Unlike all the rest of the world, in today's United States the color of the right-of-center Republican Party conservatives is flaming red, while, again, unlike the rest of the world, the color of the left-of-center Democratic party is delightfully blue.


                            My professor of Political Psychology (my primary PhD) would have labeled this a major propaganda coup by the left. But, then, before she left Moscow State University where she'd taught during the Cold War, she'd been unusually well versed on how one subtly manipulates public opinion.


                            In short--sorry Roy--in the United States it's no longer obvious that "The Reds are communists."


                            Here it's the far-left faction of the Democrats who are cheerfully Blue.


                            JE comments: I tried to make this same point when commenting on Roy's post. 


                            Some years ago we attached a date on the "Red State/Blue State" division. The original culprits were the TV networks, who needed a way to mark the states on the electoral map. In the early days of color TV, the Democrats were predictably red. Was it the "liberal media" that staged the coup of turning them blue?


                            According to this 2012 Smithsonian article, the color shift happened in very recent times:  the Election-without-End of 2000.


                            http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-republicans-were-blue-and-democrats-were-red-104176297/


                            Please login/register to reply or comment:

                            • Reds, Red States, and Blue States (Roy Domenico, USA 07/26/17 4:27 AM)
                              I just finished sending my last post--which was something of a question--and I read Timothy Brown's response (July 24 and 25).

                              I'm not sure if we disagree on that much. I get Tim's point that the Republicans are red now and I expect he's right with the under thirty (or forty?) crowd who never experienced the "old" notion that the reds are communists (at least old in America's case--identification of with the far left is still the norm for most of the world). But this still bugs me and says something about the declining place of history and heritage. My concept of red drew from more than a century-old self-identity. The far left (mainly communists) were red and proud of it--and this heritage can still be seen in the flags we've mentioned. The current American connection between red and Republican is apparently based on some media decision--either by a political operative or someone simply ignorant of the tradition (or maybe both).


                              Deep down inside, I've never been comfortable with the idea of painting the US Republican Party red and the Democrats blue. JE triggered this in me with his statement that it happened in the 2000 election. I don't doubt that--but why? Somebody somewhere--I expect some functionary at a TV network--made some bizarre decision to use red as the conservative color. Was there ever an explanation?


                              JE comments: Could the decision have been purely esthetic? The South votes Republican, and blue, like the sky, looks better when it's on the top. Also, the Coasts are Democratic, and can be blue like the oceans.


                              It's just a theory.  Perhaps a lame one.  I was reading House Beautiful last night.

                              Please login/register to reply or comment:

                              • "Red Century": New York Times (Luciano Dondero, Italy 07/28/17 2:11 AM)
                                I surely bow to our American colleagues when they describe how "red" is now getting a new spin in US politics.

                                However, I think this series in the New York Times might be helpful to keep a sense of historical/world balance:


                                https://www.nytimes.com/column/red-century


                                JE comments:  An excellent recommendation, Luciano, for this centennial year of the Russian Revolution(s).  There are several articles in the series I'm looking forward to reading, beginning with the discussions of whether Lenin was a German agent (and funded no less by German condoms--most intriguing).


                                Imagine an alternate universe in which the USSR still exists.  This would be one helluva year of centennial pageantry.


                                Please login/register to reply or comment:


                              • Reds and Red States (Robert Whealey, USA 07/28/17 5:14 AM)
                                I agree that Republican-leaning states should be called by their true name, and not by the color Red. The traditional Democratic states should be called by their traditional leanings, not Blue.

                                The United States, Great Britain, the French Republic from 1789 and the brief Provisional Government in February 1917 in Russia, used the red, white and blue. If you turn the Russian flag upside down, it would become the Dutch Tricolor.


                                An all-red flag was used briefly during the French Revolution by Danton. The red flag was born again in the 1905 Russian Revolution and with Lenin in November 1917.


                                Red became a symbol of contempt in the United States from 1917 to 1991. That red flag became a symbol for dogmatic, ideological propaganda against Communism. TV once again would like to sow confusion in the United States, with voters 18 and below, who have never read a single history book. The intelligence agencies would rather hire English majors than History majors in federal government. Historians and philosophers, who are looking for the truth, ask too many embarrassing questions, in my opinion.


                                JE comments:  Don't the intelligence agencies prefer technocrats, STEM types?  In any case, English majors are trained to think critically, just like philosophers and historians.


                                In this discussion we've done justice to the politics of red.  Shall we lighten things up a bit?  How about the "Pinkos"?


                                Please login/register to reply or comment:

                                • Reds and Rojos, Republicans and Republicanos (Enrique Torner, USA 07/29/17 8:56 AM)
                                  The names and colors of the US political parties are extremely confusing, especially to Spaniards. I always have had a very difficult time trying to explain to my family in Spain that American Republicans are the complete opposite of Spanish "republicanos," also called "rojos" (reds). So, when, after the 2016 American election, Spaniards saw the electoral map, many of them thought that the "communist" party had won by a lot, because they saw so much red on the map! The added complication is the American electoral system, which is incomprehensible from the point of view of the common Spanish citizen.

                                  Reversely, when I teach the Spanish Civil War in my university classes, my American students tend to identify "republicanos" with Republicans, and think that they are conservative! I believe French and Italians have the same problem, right? What other countries have it?


                                  JE comments:  Same in my classes.  US students have a very hard time with the basic premise of the SCW, because the Republicanos were on the left side of the spectrum.  Even more confusing for them is the notion that the rebellious side was on the right.  Aren't "revolutions" always the handiwork of the Commies?

                                  Please login/register to reply or comment:


                                • Russian Flag and Dutch Flag (Rodolfo Neirotti, USA 07/30/17 7:31 AM)

                                  Robert Whealey wrote on July 28th: "If you turn the Russian flag upside down, it would become the Dutch Tricolor."


                                  Please see both flags below, showing that this is not the case.


                                  JE comments:  Absolutely true, but several accounts of the origin of the (Tsarist) Russian standard in 1696 establish a connection to the Netherlands.  Peter the Great was an admirer of Dutch shipbuilding prowess, and apparently the Russian flag was inspired by Dutch ships calling on the port of Arkhangelsk.  See below:


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


                                  Please login/register to reply or comment:





                          • Singing "The Red Flag" (John Heelan, -UK 07/25/17 6:44 AM)
                            One also remembers the lyrics of "The Red Flag" (1889):

                            The people's flag is deepest red,

                            It shrouded oft our martyred dead,

                            And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,

                            Their hearts' blood dyed its ev'ry fold.



                            Then raise the scarlet standard high.

                            Within its shade we'll live and die,

                            Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,

                            We'll keep the red flag flying here.



                            Look 'round, the Frenchman loves its blaze,

                            The sturdy German chants its praise,

                            In Moscow's vaults its hymns are sung

                            Chicago swells the surging throng.



                            Then raise the scarlet standard high.

                            Within its shade we'll live and die,

                            Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,

                            We'll keep the red flag flying here.



                            It waved above our infant might,

                            When all ahead seemed dark as night;

                            It witnessed many a deed and vow,

                            We must not change its colour now.



                            Then raise the scarlet standard high.

                            Within its shade we'll live and die,

                            Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,

                            We'll keep the red flag flying here.



                            It well recalls the triumphs past,

                            It gives the hope of peace at last;

                            The banner bright, the symbol plain,

                            Of human right and human gain.



                            Then raise the scarlet standard high.

                            Within its shade we'll live and die,

                            Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,

                            We'll keep the red flag flying here.



                            It suits today the weak and base,

                            Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place

                            To cringe before the rich man's frown,

                            And haul the sacred emblem down.



                            Then raise the scarlet standard high.

                            Within its shade we'll live and die,

                            Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,

                            We'll keep the red flag flying here.



                            With heads uncovered swear we all

                            To bear it onward till we fall;

                            Come dungeons dark or gallows grim,

                            This song shall be our parting hymn.



                            Then raise the scarlet standard high.

                            Within its shade we'll live and die,

                            Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,

                            We'll keep the red flag flying here.



                            It's always amusing to watch the last act of the Labour Conference each year when the Party leaders all link arms on the conference stage to sing the "Red Flag."  It's a pity that some cannot remember the words and are clearly just moving their mouth!  The other interesting thing is that the "Red Flag" is sung to the tune of a German Christmas hymn, "O Tannenbaum! Oh Tannenbaum."


                            However I prefer the rude parody that states:


                            The working class can kiss my arse

                            I got the foreman's job at last.

                            You can tell old Joe I'm off the dole

                            He can stick his Red Flag up his 'ole!



                            JE comments:  "We must not change its color now."  As we saw earlier today, in 2000, American political pundits did just that.


                            Here's a vocabulary quiz:  How many of you know what "pelf" is?  I had to look it up.

                            Please login/register to reply or comment:



                        • Who Are (Were) the Reds? (Carmen Negrin, -France 07/24/17 10:38 AM)
                          To answer John E, "Red" is the term used by the Francoists to anyone who wasn't Francoist, not a very precise terminology. That's why I was wondering what Eugenio Battaglia meant.

                          JE comments: Rojo, bolchevique, judío, masón:  the Francoists didn't sweat the semantic nuances.  As Eugenio Battaglia (next) will explain, he was using "red" in the all-inclusive red-bashing sense.  A question for Eugenio:  were Jew, Mason, Bolshevik, etc., also used as "othering" epithets in Mussolini's Italy?

                          Please login/register to reply or comment:


                        • The Reds Then and Now (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 07/24/17 10:48 AM)
                          In response to Carmen Negrín (23 July), I was referring to the Red Brigades, but not only them. Carmen with the Spanish Civil War should know who the "Reds" are.

                          JE comments: Surprisingly, Carmen and Eugenio are in agreement here...

                          Please login/register to reply or comment:

                          • Le Pen, and a Conversation in a Taxi (Carmen Negrin, -France 07/25/17 10:02 AM)
                            With his reference to the "Reds," I understood who Eugenio Battaglia would be referring to in Spain, but I wasn't totally sure who he was referring to in Italy. But yes, it is true that I was pulling his leg!

                            In any case, of course this terminology, which puts everyone in the same bucket, is very practical for certain purposes, but not very precise or correct. I would consider myself (outside the US) as pink, but I guess these many colors take too much time to explain, especially in a nationalistic environment.


                            By the way, and this should make Eugenio happy, I took a taxi today and mentioned the fact that if Le Pen had won the elections I would have left France.  He asked me why. My answer, almost apolitical (except in the US), was:  "Because I am a democrat."


                            So he started giving me a history lesson about how all the wars had been initiated by democrats, WWI, WWII, all the 19th-century ones. I thought it was quite interesting to hear how history can be reinterpreted according to one's ideals, in this case Le Pen's and how these ideas have spread again and become banalized, and finally, how memory needs to be constantly refreshed.


                            Sorry to say but he didn't get a tip!


                            JE comments:  France must be like Latin America, inasmuch as you can always count on a spirited political discussion from taxistas.  But Carmen:  was your taxi driver talking about "small-d" democrats, or the capital-D party in the United States?  If the former, blaming them for the World Wars is folly.  It is true that the US had a Democratic president when it entered most of its wars:  WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

                            Please login/register to reply or comment:







                • Economy of Nazi Germany (Tor Guimaraes, USA 07/20/17 2:24 PM)

                  Eugenio Battaglia (20 July) stated, "Nazi Germany was not a capitalist regime, but rather an example of national (not Marxist) socialism." 


                  Nazi Germany was a hybrid system, a one-party socialist dictatorship with some major private capitalist entities (companies).


                  No one can deny that compared to the situation after WWI, the Nazis after the early ideological cleansing which was pretty ugly, took much better care of German working class. In my opinion, once the shooting for WWII started, German social economics started to deteriorate and measurement of productivity became exceedingly difficult due to military conscription (more untrained women to the production lines) and widespread slave labor. Also, stolen raw materials must have been helpful, but war activity took a heavy toll.


                  One of the most impressive performances from Nazi Germany, and to a lesser extent Tojo's Japan, were some of the advanced weapons systems developed under fire: jet fighter, new tanks, V1 and V2 rockets, new submarines. If the jet, the V2 and the new submarines had been more fully deployed, we might all be speaking German today despite Hitler's strategic stupidity invading Poland and starting WWII prematurely, Barbarossa, declaring war on the US, etc.


                  Further, thank God Hitler's megalomania wasted huge amounts of German energy and raw materials (labor, cement, steel, etc.) in the Channel Islands, the Siegfried Line, the huge battleships, etc.


                  JE comments:  I'm still curious about Nazi Germany's central bank.  How exactly did its currency work?  Was the Reichsmark ever a convertible currency?


                  Please login/register to reply or comment:


                • Eric Kurlander, "Hitler's Monsters" (John Heelan, -UK 07/21/17 4:18 AM)

                  In response to Eugenio Battaglia (20 July), by coincidence I am currently reading Hitler's Monsters by Eric Kurlander (Yale UP, 2017), which claims to be "The definitive history of the supernatural in Nazi Germany, exploring the occult ideas, esoteric sciences and pagan religions touted by the Third Reich in service of power."


                  From the base ideas of Madame Blavatsky's Theosophy, Kurlander traces step-by-step how the ideas of what he terms "the supernatural imaginary" of the occult, supported by Hess, Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Rohm and others, became the basis of the "religion" fundamental to National Socialism that was aimed at the destruction of European Judaism and reached its pinnacle in the Wannsee Conference.


                  JE comments:  Helena Blavatsky's theosophy been cited as one of the underpinnings of modern anti-Semitism.  I presume this is one of the central arguments of Kurlander's book.  Professor Hilton was familiar with Blavatsky's writings, but did not go into detail:


                  http://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=7187&objectTypeId=1437&topicId=1


                  Please login/register to reply or comment:


                • Lloyd George's Visit to Hitler, 1936 (Robert Whealey, USA 07/21/17 4:43 AM)
                  I would like to see an endnote for the 1936 visit, when David Lloyd George said "Heil Hitler."  (See Eugenio Battaglia, 20 July.)  I read David Lloyd George's report to the FO. He did praise Hitler in a somewhat humorous way. But I don't recall any slogan such as Heil Hitler.

                  JE comments:  Google "Lloyd George praises Hitler" and you get a minefield of apologist websites.  It's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff (more precisely, manure).  Did LG ever say "Heil Hitler" in earnest?  We do know he came back from the 1936 encounter glowing with Fuhrer enthusiasm.  In an essay he called Hitler "Germany's George Washington."


                  Remember the British Tommies' classic ditty, "Lloyd George Knew my Father, Father knew Lloyd George," sung to the tune of "Onward Christian Soldiers"?  Some say it referred to LG's reputation as a womanizer.

                  Please login/register to reply or comment:

                  • Was Lloyd George an Appeaser in 1936? (Robert Whealey, USA 07/23/17 4:53 AM)
                    Lloyd George in 1936 indeed was an appeaser, certainly different than he had been in 1916 to 1922.

                    The purpose of LG's 1936 trip was to tell Hitler that Great Britain was not going to return former German colonies to the Third Reich.


                    JE comments:  I hope Robert Whealey will follow up on this.  Did Hitler ever ask for Great Britain to return its colonies--presumably, the ones in Africa it lost after WWI?  I don't recall ever reading about this, even in A. J. P. Taylor's arguably revisionist The Origins of the Second World War.

                    Please login/register to reply or comment:










  • Hoarding vs Sharing, Continued (Cameron Sawyer, Russia 07/11/17 5:14 AM)
    In my opinion, this is a very good comment from Tor Guimaraes (10 July).



    I think it is a gross, and potentially misleading simplification, to refer to all saving and investment as "hoarding." It is the essence of human economy, much more than the division of labor, to create wealth which can be saved over for winter, then another season, or invested to multiply and allow prosperity which does not have to be produced every day. Only this makes it possible for humans to extend the effect of their labor (and other economic activity) to future periods, and thus to provide for themselves even when they are sick or too old to work.



    I agree with Tor that this is primary economic activity; sharing comes after. Saving and investment is characteristic of more advanced economies where economic actors think and plan further than just for today. It is an activity which is essential to economic progress, and which brings a multitude of benefits to everyone, and not just to the savers and investors, so should not be taxed or otherwise discouraged into unattractiveness, lest economic progress be stopped altogether--lest there be nothing to share.

    JE comments: Let's call it "savings vs sharing," as "hoarding" is such a loaded term. And yes, you cannot share at all until you accumulate stuff above a subsistence level.


    I'm still waiting for responses on "hoarding" in different languages. Specifically, what other languages have a single word for the pathological accumulation of things? I would think "hoarding" enters the public consciousness especially in times of war, when it is often codified as a crime.

    Please login/register to reply or comment:


Trending Now



All Forums with Published Content (44628 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications

Economics

Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy

Education

Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series

History

Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust

Nations

Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire

Politics

Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 US Elections 2020 Violence War War Crimes Within the US

Religion

Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)

Travel

Geography Maps Tourism Transportation

WAIS

1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who