Hi All!
First my congratulations on great discussion. The innovative, provocative and knowledgeable Vic Dale versus the more traditional, cautious and knowledgeable RF and LWD. You all seem to be curious and despite a few suggestions both ways to the contrary, open minded. By and large you all stick to grappling with the substance of each other's views and even reach a degree of accord on certain sub-points. Finally although things got heated, you guys managed to keep it civil.
Basically I'm a leftist liberal who is by nature attracted to Vic's arguments. However, I also think that capitalism is the least imperfect economic system because it best accomodates human nature. I think Vic, as the challenger of the conventional wisdom, needs to beef up his assertions with citations to some primary sources (I think such support can be found for at least some of his points). So after reading the Thread I think RF and LWD have had the better of the argument (so far).
I'll just toss off a few thoughts that occurred to me while I was reading. I have no set agenda on this so hopefully they will cut both ways while being interesting to all.
( a ) I agree with Vic that total market anarchy is a base mechanism of capitalism, so unregulated capitalism will always tend to go there, as well as toward "winner take all" or monopoly. Thus capitalism is not inevitable or indestructible but rather fragile. Here's a link to an article about the theories of Hyman Minsky, a devoted capitalist who nonetheless feared that its structure included the seeds of self-destruction(1):
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... ism_fails/
I'm not as pessimistic as Minsky. But the only way an economic system can be justified to the masses is if it
produces mass benefits. The whole point of society and government is to better the entire society Indeed capitalism, as it must, justifies itself by arguing that it is the best way to reach that goal. Unfortunately, the tendency to anarchic markets allows the informed few to take advantage of the ignorant many, while "winner take all" or monopoly accumulate rewards in a few hands, while stifling the "competition" that is also supposed to be the essence of capitalism, and thus depriving most people of opportunities. To ensure that this does not happen, capitalism must be well regulated - in part by forced downward redistribution of wealth to some degree, and social welfare programs to protect or placate the inevitable losers. After all the mass market made
America great, not capitalism itself, and social instability is not a good environment for capitalism.
( b ) I agree with RF that trade unions are actually capitalist institutions but disagree with the reason he gives, which is investing their pension and other funds in stock markets. The fundamental reason why labor unions are capitalistic in nature is that they gather all of the workers together in a cartel or monopoly which strengthens their bargaining power because a threat to stop all work also threatens to deprive capital of ongoing profits. Thus the base principal of organized labor is one of the base tendencies of capitalism.
( c ) I think RF and LWD have a better understanding of Fascism in all its flavors, Nazi or otherwise and that Vic is incorrect to say it is anti-labor. The truth is that Fascism is based on co-opting both labor and capital in the service of the state and its fascist government. The point is not to favor one or the other and the distinction is only relevant because co-opting each requires a different approach. There is no need to be anti-either or destroy either; all the program has to do is enlist both.
Thus I think that Vic's arguments trying to tie the Nazis to an anti-Socialist plank based on underlying
anti-Communism miss the point. They were entirely cynical in the matter, best illustrated by the contradiction of having "Socialist" in the Nazi Party name while at the same time raging against "Communists". The Nazis tried to have it both ways - using "Socialist" to suggest better prospects for the masses while "Communists" defined an enemy for the masses to unite against.
( d ) Vic says that German "Capitalists" and "peasantry" supported the Nazis and further says that Germany had a "large peasantry". I don't think so. The "peasantry" disappeared after unification under Bismark in 1870 and was replaced by industrial middle and poor worker classes and for-profit landowning farmers. There were at least two varieties of "Capitalists" - a relatively small group of I.G Farben type industrialists and a much larger group of entrepreneurs who owned small and mid sized companies called the "Mittelstrand" (who were and still are regarded as the backbone of the German economy). Then you had the bourgeois-intelligentsia types such as professionals, academics and government officials. Finally the military was the joker in the deck because it was a leftover of the conservative Prussian aristocracy. The whole was 2/3 Protestant, 1/3 Catholic. There had
been strong succession sentiment in the last states to join the Union such as Bavaria at the end of WW I.
Vic's attempt to define pro Nazi sentiment in terms of "Capitalists" and "peasants" is not well founded and too simplistic. The best that can be said is that the Nazis had the support of close to half of this polyglot group at the start and later they co-opted most of the rest.
( e ) Vic argues that Hitler artificially skewed the economic system in favor of Capitalists by inter alia indemnifying them against losses due to following his directions and suppressing production to keep prices high. LWD generally countered this by saying Hitler's policies used common tools for managing market economies, and in any case, they were not skewed in favor of Capitalists. I think LWD got the better of this for a political reason that starts with something that may be new and provocative but then draws on ( a ), ( c ) and ( d ) above.
I don't think that the Nazis were confident of their "iron grip" on the German masses, and that history overstates the degree to which totalitarian fear and cruelty were used to control typical Germans(2).
As a practical matter, Germans had some freedom to complain about the war, criticize officials, and disagree with policy. This is evidenced by popular jokes (i.e. "Fat Goring"), "tolerance" of principled objectors such as Generals Thomas and Hoepner, and not shooting but just firing generals such as Manstein who disagreed with orders. Sure, probably 1/4 of the population were informers and records were kept of what people said. But the reason for bringing down the boot was not
just saying something, but suspicion of
actually doing something. However, the Nazis had a pre-emptory, generous and arbitrary definition of "suspicion of doing something", which was all they required to subject a citizen to the full measure of totalitarian cruelty, so they netted a lot of ordinary Germans and produced lots of horror stories. The cases of Generals Thomas and
Hoepner are illustrative because they prominently and openly voiced dissent from 1942 until July 20, 1944, at which point they were arrested on suspicion of being involved in the bomb plot.
The Nazis certainly despised free speech, but were constrained by practical considerations. Preoccupied with having enough men to fight most of the world on one hand and internally exterminating ten million people on the other, they needed every man, but even if they didn't, the resources left to control them are limited.
Thus the Nazi's primary control mechanism was to encourage popular support by delivering both guns and butter to the masses. They recognized that doing both was the key to co-opting the German masses and maintaining their control. That's why they didn't go to a full war economy until 1944!(3) Given this, then their economic policies were driven by a need to favor the masses, not a few industrial Capitalists. The cooperation of the Capitalists was obviously needed to pull this off so they got favors as a means to this larger end.
( f ) One of Vic's larger themes seems to be that the Capitalist Western Allies were driven into pre WW II policy errors in their relations with Hitler by fear of Russian Communism. I agree totally. At first blush, one would think that this fear was irrational. After all, if Capitalism with Western Democracy is as great as its proponents say, why would people be tempted to worsen their condition and go to the dark side? How can it be perceived to be under threat while at the same time the US economic engine, ready to spring forth, is perceived to be the decisive factor? The only rational reason that I can think of for their fear is a belief that Capitalism was out of kilter in the aftermath of the Depression and was not benefiting the masses sufficiently (see ( a ) above).
I'm afraid of nuclear missiles, not the ideology of their owners. They won't be used for ideological reasons because Communism can hardly conquer the world if they blow it up first, while Capitalists have more to lose in Armageddon. The only things that would trigger their use are: (1) an accident; or (2) some perceived need to escalate a conventional war that started for the usual reasons such as territory, pride or resources. Thus during the period from 1945 to 1992, when Capitalism was delivering the goods, fear of Russian Communism as a seductive ideology was truly irrational.
Since 1992 Western Capitalism/Democracy, although ascendant, gradually went out of kilter again. The demise of the USSR almost immediately ushered in an era of loosening of regulation and disdain for the previous antitrust, tax, labor and social policies(4) that fostered a mass market where almost everyone feels like they are in on the game. Without the threat of the Russian Commies there was no alternative to seduce the masses and the fear that motivated well-regulated Capitalism was gone.
But nowadays we have the Chinese, who plan to put some crappy aircraft carrier into service. Some say that China has no reason to have one, other than a desire to project power in pursuit of national policy (which just gotta be Commie-nefarious). Actually and simply put, they want one for the same reasons we have each of our eleven. But this aircraft carrier is a canard like the missiles.
The real problem is that while Western Capitalism is under strain, the Chinese have a competing economic system that is delivering widespread prosperity; building Capitalism from Communist roots by using extremely well-regulated processes that are only possible under an established authoritarian regime. I'm not saying that the Western Capitalist masses will yearn for this authoritarian model, but it reminds them of better times in say, 1992, when things were reasonably well regulated and greed at the top was tempered by the Russian Commies.
Vic is correct that the Western Capitalist leaders let their concerns about Communism color their policies toward Hitler in the late 30's. Those at the top were aware of their unequal benefits and risk of mass perception that they are also unfair. However as long as just about everyone thinks that they are becoming better off in small upward steps near the bottom then they won't begrudge those on top. However, the go-go unregulated free markets of the 20's had unbalanced their system and caused a lingering decade-old Depression. The system was not generating enough economic activity to deliver mass benefits and retain mass support. Increased interest in the Communist alternative and agitation for downward wealth redistribution schemes was likely. This has
continued to the present day.
( g ) I also agree with the broad point that in the late 30's the Western Capitalist Democracies were just as interested in using Hitler to their own unique advantage as they were in stopping him and his evil. So was Stalin, and Hitler of course had his own plans. Thus I don't see how the fact that all nations keep their policy options open has any bearing on the relative merit or morality of Western Capitalist Democracy versus National Socialism versus Communism.
( h ) I don't think the Allied leaders, including Stalin, callously disregarded the Holocaust. First, it would be hard to believe anecdotal evidence that it was happening unless you saw it with your own eyes. Second, even if it was genocide, there was no way to really know the scale. Third, to a normal person it would seem more likely that the camps were for internment. Fourth, they were fighting a war and the camps were not known to be producing war materials, so targets and rail lines that were producing war material would be favored.
_______________________________________
(1) You guys are obviously well educated with higher education backround similar to mine. FWIW, I was exposed to Minsky in Macroeconomics 101 by a "progressive" professor in the late 70's.
(2) Of course, this is not true as to the Jews, mentally ill, and anyone else who ran afoul of their racial ideology.
(3) At this point, it does not seem that they used increased cruelty to fill the "butter" void. Instead they started to plumb widespread knowledge of the extermination camps, couple it with the "unconditional surrender" demand, and motivate and co-opt the masses by saying that we are all equally guilty and will all go down together due to the camps if we surrender. The July 20, 1944 bomb plot seems to be an independent reason for increased totalitarian measures.
(4) Clinton started it with welfare reform, telecom and securities deregulation, too much free trade too fast, and the real killer, Glass-Steagall repeal.