|
Well, now that you mention it, Keynes is something that Marxism has contributed to economics in practical terms. Keynes is just Marx repackaged for bourgeois sensibilities, and with the possibility of any permanent solution to the crisis-tendencies of capitalism abandoned.
Oh please sammy sosadat, sometimes you stretch just a little bit too far with your attempts at showing erudition via startling pronouncement.
I don't think Marx would agree, upon hearing that Keynes is just Marxism repackaged for bourgeoisie sensibilities, since Keynesianism is just crony capitalism repackaged for egalitarian sensibilities. See wut I did there? Hehe. Anyone can certainly make that argument either way and have aspects of it be quite convincing.
Marxian political economy is not supposed to tell you how to run a capitalist economy, that's not the point of what it's for. Criticizing Marxian political economy for not telling you how to run a capitalist economy "in practical terms" is like criticizing metaphysics for not telling you how a particle accelerator works. It's not about that.
And so we reach the real problem with your ideology and how you apply it to the world that I wanted to expand upon elsewhere but lost the opportunity and here I will only be giving a brief version of my proposal, probably will put the full thing into a blog someday:
When you say something like the crisis-tendencies of capitalism, you of course point to history. But if I were to, say, talk about the crisis-tendencies of Marxism that have been more frequent and more deadly than the crises of capitalism, we would run into a roadblock. I think you know why. There's always a dodge for the clever Marxist to use, to separate his thought from its real-world consequences.
No such courtesy is extended to the capitalist or capitalism by the Marxist, however. Real capitalism has been tried, real Marxism has not, even mentioning that that contention is a dodge is not polite and the Marxist must jump and release a frigid blast of you just don't understand Marxism or Marxianism or whatever the erudite word for that particular religion is today.
It's the opposite side of the coin of that tired old war horse of the acolytes of Mises, praxeology. A never-ending wheel of darkness that only the shaman can interpret correctly. It just gets all too tiresome sometimes, when you realize that to be considered learned enough to understand The Religious Works, one must sign up beforehand on to its Commandments.
|
It would be catastrophically misguided to say anything otherwise than that Keynes was a good old capitalist. The fact that the NA right try to dismiss Keynesian economics as "socialist" or "communist" or whatever red-scare terms is comical, to say the least. But trying to claim Keynes as a Marxist is maybe even more troubling, because then you are basically capitulating to a point where the capitalist and the communist become crypto-reflections of each other and I think most of us would agree that words would becoming meaningless at that point.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On March 05 2013 02:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When you say something like the crisis-tendencies of capitalism, you of course point to history. But if I were to, say, talk about the crisis-tendencies of Marxism that have been more frequent and more deadly than the crises of capitalism, we would run into a roadblock. I think you know why. There's always a dodge for the clever Marxist to use, to separate his thought from its real-world consequences.
No such courtesy is extended to the capitalist or capitalism by the Marxist, however. Real capitalism has been tried, real Marxism has not, even mentioning that that contention is a dodge is not polite and the Marxist must jump and release a frigid blast of you just don't understand Marxism or Marxianism or whatever the erudite word for that particular religion is today.
You, sir, are brilliant. Excellently stated.
|
On March 04 2013 14:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 13:40 sam!zdat wrote:What led to the first world war that put Germany in the position of having to pay crippling reparations? It's all the same war, just with a big interlude for the crisis to build up again. And, yes, the financial crisis preceding the Great War was caused by liberal monetary policy and the international exchange system tied to the gold standard. The liberals wanted to pretend that economics and politics are two separate things. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that, nor should it. On March 04 2013 13:39 rusedeguerre wrote:
since you've made blaming capitalism your occupation. but why would I do this, if it has brought me so much material wealth? That doesn't make the least bit of sense. Y'all got pretty much two options 1) sam is crazy 2) sam is on to something. pick one, I don't care which. WWI happened for social, technological and ideological reasons, not economic. It happened largely because none of the people in power thought it'd be a good idea for it not to happen. It profited no-one. If any of the nations involved had any idea what they were doing they would have avoided it but the reality of the war they were starting was completely unknown to the men behind it. WWI marked the end of the 19th Century era of unrestricted liberalism (classical liberalism, not 'murcan liberals), the government seizure of power necessary to wage a total war was never really relaxed and the suffering of the working classes in a war in which they had no stake in toppled one society entirely and fundamentally changed all of them. The nations of Europe were changing, growing and advancing while the political structures with which they were governed became increasingly unrepresentative, antiquated and unfit for purpose. It's not that there wasn't political evolution, it's that society was changing at a rate that outpaced it. Those in power did not understand that it would be a total war of attrition, nor that the working classes would revolt at being sacrificed for God and country. International Marxism was the only real victor of the Great War as, across Europe, the veterans realised they had more in common with each other than with their officers who led them in a war to defend ideals that were irrelevant to them.
Kwark, The Great War had a great deal to do with monetary policy and financial crisis, I recommend "The Great Transformation" by Karl Polanyi. I don't want to get into a debate on the philosophy of history. All of these things are tied together. But if you say "it had nothing to do with economics" that is pure ignorance, I'm sorry. (edit: in fact, I think I'll go so far as to say that there is nothing in all of history that has "nothing to do" with economics. What an absurd notion)
Guys, I wasn't saying Keynes was a Marxist. I'm saying his stole his main idea from Marx and tried to solve the problem within the bourgeois framework. That is true. The "crisis of effective demand" is already theorized in Capital Vol 1. Marx wasn't a "Marxist" either, he was a theorist of the capitalist mode of production (and a philosopher of the human condition). His theory is quite useful.
On March 05 2013 02:33 koreasilver wrote:
basically capitulating to a point where the capitalist and the communist become crypto-reflections of each other
Marxian political economy has as its object the same capitalist system as bourgeois political economy (Marx's discussion in Capital quite intentionally accepts all of the basic premises of the bourgeois political economists, and then develops them to their logical conclusion). They ARE reflections of one another. Marxism is not an "alternate economics" in the sense of providing another way of doing things - it explains why capitalism behaves in the way that it does.
On March 05 2013 02:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:
When you say something like the crisis-tendencies of capitalism, you of course point to history. But if I were to, say, talk about the crisis-tendencies of Marxism that have been more frequent and more deadly than the crises of capitalism, we would run into a roadblock.
This doesn't make any sense, for the reasons above. You are still stuck on your stupid Marxism=Stalinism assholery. How long are you going to refuse to acknowledge this? I grow weary. None of your post makes any sense at all, if you understand what Marxism is. One cannot "try" Marxism, that's nonsense and a category error. I'm coming from an intellectual tradition that has basically nothing to do with the bolsheviks or the maoists or any of that. They're more my enemies than they are yours! Why the fuck do you think the first thing the bolsheviks did was purge all the intellectuals? same with the fucking maoists. They were traitors.
edit: MARXISM IS NOT A THEORY OF HOW COMMUNISM WORKS. DEAR LORD PEOPLE. HOW MANY TIMES MUST I FUCKING SAY THIS
edit:
On March 05 2013 02:58 oneofthem wrote:
ctrl+f sraffa
had no idea he was close with Gramsci. I'll have to check him out.
edit: don't worry DEB, someday you will realize that Marxism is the only true Christian politics and we will be the closest of comrades <3
|
On March 04 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes I do. Keynes "refined capitalism" by proposing a solution to the general glut tendency first adequately theorized by Marx. there is no difference between a Keynesian crisis of effective demand and Marxian crisis of overproduction, they are just theorized from different direction. Keynes lifted the idea directly from Marx.
Marxian political economy is not supposed to tell you how to run a capitalist economy, that's not the point of what it's for. Criticizing Marxian political economy for not telling you how to run a capitalist economy "in practical terms" is like criticizing metaphysics for not telling you how a particle accelerator works. It's not about that.
edit: your quotes don't help even a little bit. they just say "there is such a thing as Keynesianism."
edit: we can also note, while we're on the subject, that Adam Smith lifted much of HIS political economy from 13th century Persian thinkers, who conceived of the question of what a market economy is in much different moral-philosophical terms than did Smith. Smith's famous line about the dogs and the bone is lifted directly from these earlier texts, same with his bit about the pin factory.
Keynes' crisis of effectiv demand is a problem of anticipation (the effective demand is the aggregation of the anticipations of the producers on the future demand and not the current demand) while Marx consider that the system as it is - the capitalism - lead to crisis for various reasons (accumulation, loss of profit, etc.). It's very different, Keynes as a statistical mathematician just basically wanted to show the "human side" of the market (some crisis are made by contamination of bad anticipations on the future, the "nervous depression").
Marx consider the capitalism flawed at his core. I see where you are coming from but it's not entirely true. Marx's crisis theory goes deeper.
Also, The Great Transformation has nothing to do with why or how the 2nd world war started (and Kwark was talking about the first). It's quite the opposite, he is showing the economical consequences of the ideology, or the link between the political field and the economical market through out history. At no point he is saying the evolution of the economy lead to the war, the opposite actually.
|
On March 05 2013 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes I do. Keynes "refined capitalism" by proposing a solution to the general glut tendency first adequately theorized by Marx. there is no difference between a Keynesian crisis of effective demand and Marxian crisis of overproduction, they are just theorized from different direction. Keynes lifted the idea directly from Marx.
Marxian political economy is not supposed to tell you how to run a capitalist economy, that's not the point of what it's for. Criticizing Marxian political economy for not telling you how to run a capitalist economy "in practical terms" is like criticizing metaphysics for not telling you how a particle accelerator works. It's not about that.
edit: your quotes don't help even a little bit. they just say "there is such a thing as Keynesianism."
edit: we can also note, while we're on the subject, that Adam Smith lifted much of HIS political economy from 13th century Persian thinkers, who conceived of the question of what a market economy is in much different moral-philosophical terms than did Smith. Smith's famous line about the dogs and the bone is lifted directly from these earlier texts, same with his bit about the pin factory. Keynes' crisis of effectiv demand is a problem of anticipation (the effective demand is the aggregation of the anticipations of the producers on the future demand and not the current demand) while Marx consider that the system as it is - the capitalism - lead to crisis for various reasons (accumulation, loss of profit, etc.). It's very different, Keynes as a statistical mathematician just basically wanted to show the "human side" of the market (some crisis are made by contamination of bad anticipations on the future, the "nervous depression"). Marx consider the capitalism flawed at his core. I see where you are coming from but it's not entirely true. Marx's crisis theory goes deeper.
They're the same. Keynes just looks at a piece of the problem, rather than the whole problem. This is just the difference between an apologist and a radical. That's why Keynesianism is "band-aid Marxism." If you're interested in a more technical discussion of the comparison of Keynes and Marx, I recommend David Harvey The Limits to Capital, he discusses this at length.
Also, The Great Transformation has nothing to do with why or how the 2nd world war started (and Kwark was talking about the first). It's quite the opposite, he is showing the economical consequences of the ideology, or the link between the political field and the economical market through out history. At no point he is saying the evolution of the economy lead to the war, the opposite actually.
Um, I'm reading it right now, and that is definitely not what it says. He argues quite explicitly that the tensions which led to WW1 and resurfaced in WW2 were caused in large part by crisis tendencies in the international system and a liberal ideology which held that economics and politics were separate fields which could be considered in isolation from one another.
|
On March 05 2013 05:19 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:On March 04 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes I do. Keynes "refined capitalism" by proposing a solution to the general glut tendency first adequately theorized by Marx. there is no difference between a Keynesian crisis of effective demand and Marxian crisis of overproduction, they are just theorized from different direction. Keynes lifted the idea directly from Marx.
Marxian political economy is not supposed to tell you how to run a capitalist economy, that's not the point of what it's for. Criticizing Marxian political economy for not telling you how to run a capitalist economy "in practical terms" is like criticizing metaphysics for not telling you how a particle accelerator works. It's not about that.
edit: your quotes don't help even a little bit. they just say "there is such a thing as Keynesianism."
edit: we can also note, while we're on the subject, that Adam Smith lifted much of HIS political economy from 13th century Persian thinkers, who conceived of the question of what a market economy is in much different moral-philosophical terms than did Smith. Smith's famous line about the dogs and the bone is lifted directly from these earlier texts, same with his bit about the pin factory. Keynes' crisis of effectiv demand is a problem of anticipation (the effective demand is the aggregation of the anticipations of the producers on the future demand and not the current demand) while Marx consider that the system as it is - the capitalism - lead to crisis for various reasons (accumulation, loss of profit, etc.). It's very different, Keynes as a statistical mathematician just basically wanted to show the "human side" of the market (some crisis are made by contamination of bad anticipations on the future, the "nervous depression"). Marx consider the capitalism flawed at his core. I see where you are coming from but it's not entirely true. Marx's crisis theory goes deeper. They're the same. Keynes just looks at a piece of the problem, rather than the whole problem. This is just the difference between an apologist and a radical. That's why Keynesianism is "band-aid Marxism." If you're interested in a more technical discussion of the comparison of Keynes and Marx, I recommend David Harvey The Limits to Capital, he discusses this at length. Show nested quote +
Also, The Great Transformation has nothing to do with why or how the 2nd world war started (and Kwark was talking about the first). It's quite the opposite, he is showing the economical consequences of the ideology, or the link between the political field and the economical market through out history. At no point he is saying the evolution of the economy lead to the war, the opposite actually.
Um, I'm reading it right now, and that is definitely not what it says. He argues quite explicitly that the tensions which led to WW1 and resurfaced in WW2 were caused in large part by crisis tendencies in the international system and a liberal ideology which held that economics and politics were separate fields which could be considered in isolation from one another.
He argue that during the course of history, the market and the economy separated itself from the politic, and that at a certain point the society structured itself around the market (the "Market Society"). But that situation is dying because of its inner contradiction since the 1930 crisis.
"The great transformation" is basically the WW2, or how the contradiction of this society structured around the market lead to a situation where the politic is taking over the economy once again. He is not saying that the economy caused the war, but that a society structured around its economy is not viable : totalitarism, facism, are all a way to reembed the economy in the society.
I've read it a long time ago.
Also no, they are not the same. That some people think so is one thing, but their differencies are huge. It's like saying Schumpeter is like Marx, because he basically took Marx's reproduction cycle to build his theory of evolution. They are close, but they (both Keynes and Schumpeter) took what they could, and built a theory that was all centered around criticising Marx and trying to make him disappear.
For Marx, the simple fact that societies are trying to make profit individually in society is leading the capitalism to its death : it's not a question of misinformation or irrationalism like for Keynes.
|
No, "the Great Transformation" is the entire process of industrialization and "modernization." I think you should revisit the book, your recollection is a bit hazy. He talks a great deal about the relationship between international monetary policy and the world wars.
On March 05 2013 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:
Also no, they are not the same. That some people think so is one thing, but their differencies are huge. It's like saying Schumpeter is like Marx, because he basically took Marx's reproduction cycle to build his theory of evolution. They are close, but they (both Keynes and Schumpeter) took what they could, and built a theory that was all centered around criticising Marx and trying to make him disappear.
This is a properly hegelian relationship and I have no problem with it. Of course they will try to make Marx disappear! that's the point. But the contradictions always remain.
On March 05 2013 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:
For Marx, the simple fact that societies are trying to make profit individually in society is leading the capitalism to its death : it's not a question of misinformation or irrationalism like for Keynes.
There's some more analysis in there between " M-C-M' " and "general glut crisis." The crises are the same.
On March 05 2013 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:
He is not saying that the economy caused the war, but that a society structured around its economy is not viable : totalitarism, facism, are all a way to reembed the economy in the society.
Yes, exactly. Marxism is about how to solve this problem, that's the entire point.
|
On March 05 2013 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:No, "the Great Transformation" is the entire process of industrialization and "modernization." I think you should revisit the book, your recollection is a bit hazy. He talks a great deal about the relationship between international monetary policy and the world wars. Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:
Also no, they are not the same. That some people think so is one thing, but their differencies are huge. It's like saying Schumpeter is like Marx, because he basically took Marx's reproduction cycle to build his theory of evolution. They are close, but they (both Keynes and Schumpeter) took what they could, and built a theory that was all centered around criticising Marx and trying to make him disappear. This is a properly hegelian relationship and I have no problem with it. Of course they will try to make Marx disappear! that's the point. But the contradictions always remain. Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:
For Marx, the simple fact that societies are trying to make profit individually in society is leading the capitalism to its death : it's not a question of misinformation or irrationalism like for Keynes. There's some more analysis in there between " M-C-M' " and "general glut crisis." The crises are the same.
I'm pretty sure the great transformation is the end of the 1850-1930 civilisation of "free market".
|
On March 05 2013 05:47 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:No, "the Great Transformation" is the entire process of industrialization and "modernization." I think you should revisit the book, your recollection is a bit hazy. He talks a great deal about the relationship between international monetary policy and the world wars. On March 05 2013 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:
Also no, they are not the same. That some people think so is one thing, but their differencies are huge. It's like saying Schumpeter is like Marx, because he basically took Marx's reproduction cycle to build his theory of evolution. They are close, but they (both Keynes and Schumpeter) took what they could, and built a theory that was all centered around criticising Marx and trying to make him disappear. This is a properly hegelian relationship and I have no problem with it. Of course they will try to make Marx disappear! that's the point. But the contradictions always remain. On March 05 2013 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:
For Marx, the simple fact that societies are trying to make profit individually in society is leading the capitalism to its death : it's not a question of misinformation or irrationalism like for Keynes. There's some more analysis in there between " M-C-M' " and "general glut crisis." The crises are the same. I'm pretty sure the great transformation is the end of the 1850-1930 civilisation of "free market".
No. He starts off talking about the Poor Law and Speenhamland in 17th century england. that's all part of it. I am literally reading this book right now, man (just finished next-to-last chapter).
edit: anyway, this is just an argument over words. I don't think that matters to the point.
edit: the financial crisis is the product of the attempt to disembed economics from politics.
edit: "liquidity preference" is another idea supposedly attributable to Keynes which actually already occurs in Marx, while we're on the topic.
edit: And we'll note that when Kwark says something like "it was political and social, not economic", this is a part of the liberal ideology as well! The economic and political can never be separated, no matter how loudly we tell ourselves that they are. Never let anyone tell you that anything has nothing to do with economics - that means they are trying to sell you something. "It's the economy, stupid!"
|
On March 05 2013 05:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 05:47 WhiteDog wrote:On March 05 2013 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:No, "the Great Transformation" is the entire process of industrialization and "modernization." I think you should revisit the book, your recollection is a bit hazy. He talks a great deal about the relationship between international monetary policy and the world wars. On March 05 2013 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:
Also no, they are not the same. That some people think so is one thing, but their differencies are huge. It's like saying Schumpeter is like Marx, because he basically took Marx's reproduction cycle to build his theory of evolution. They are close, but they (both Keynes and Schumpeter) took what they could, and built a theory that was all centered around criticising Marx and trying to make him disappear. This is a properly hegelian relationship and I have no problem with it. Of course they will try to make Marx disappear! that's the point. But the contradictions always remain. On March 05 2013 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:
For Marx, the simple fact that societies are trying to make profit individually in society is leading the capitalism to its death : it's not a question of misinformation or irrationalism like for Keynes. There's some more analysis in there between " M-C-M' " and "general glut crisis." The crises are the same. I'm pretty sure the great transformation is the end of the 1850-1930 civilisation of "free market". No. He starts off talking about the Poor Law and Speenhamland in 17th century england. that's all part of it. I am literally reading this book right now, man (just finished next-to-last chapter). edit: anyway, this is just an argument over words. I don't think that matters to the point. edit: the financial crisis is the product of the attempt to disembed economics from politics. edit: "liquidity preference" is another idea supposedly attributable to Keynes which actually already occurs in Marx, while we're on the topic. edit: And we'll note that when Kwark says something like "it was political and social, not economic", this is a part of the liberal ideology as well! The economic and political can never be separated, no matter how loudly we tell ourselves that they are. Never let anyone tell you that anything has nothing to do with economics - that means they are trying to sell you something. "It's the economy, stupid!"
You are misunderstanding what I was saying. Marx also was wrong in putting the economy before all. He did it for his own reasons - after Hegel and Feuerbach he had to put the focus on the actual living conditions - and admitted that he forced the trait. When someone says a war has been started for economical reasons, one can also say it's a marxist point of view that puts aside the ideologies, the ideas, and everything that goes with it.
When Kwark was saying "it was political and social, not economic" I think, in his own way, he is saying that you cannot explain everything through economy. Of course, if he was thinking about some kind of reversed marxism where only ideas count, like Pierre Clastres' Society versus State, he is not right either. The economy is not the simple reflect of the ideologies and the war of ideas. But the economy is actually not enough to explain this war or any other matter. Just like you said : as Polyani said, it's an historical process that makes us think that we separate economy and politics, while in truth they are embeded. It goes both ways.
|
Marx is not an economic reductionist, that's a caricature. I'm pretty sure Kwark was trying to deny that economics had anything to do with it.
I don't really want to get into a discussion of base-superstructure theory, since I don't really know what kind of background everyone has in the literature on this topic. For the moment, I just want to say that I'm well aware of the complexity of the issue and this is one of my primary research interests.
edit: if Marx were an economic reductionist, there would be no point in the ideologiekritik
edit: the original point was that the wars of the first half of the 20th century cannot be understood as anything other than the clash of rival capitalist/imperial powers. I stand by that.
|
On March 05 2013 09:00 sam!zdat wrote:
Marx is not an economic reductionist, that's a caricature. I'm pretty sure Kwark was trying to deny that economics had anything to do with it.
I don't really want to get into a discussion of base-superstructure theory, since I don't really know what kind of background everyone has in the literature on this topic. For the moment, I just want to say that I'm well aware of the complexity of the issue and this is one of my primary research interests.
edit: if Marx were an economic reductionist, there would be no point in the ideologiekritik
That's not a carricature. That's his own reduction made for political reasons. His definition of idealogy is pretty clear : it's like watching a mirror "upside down" (ideology "walks on the head"). Ideologies only reflect (not righfully) the conditions of living according to Marx (I should say, according to the Marxism, because it's not the case for Marx himself).
|
It's a heuristic reduction for the sake of analysis. The only way to study a complex system is to perform a heuristic reduction - you cannot study it all at once. you have to pick a window, look at it through that window, then back up again and pick another window. If Marx were committed to a economic reductionist view of history, there would be no point in his writing a book about it!
I really don't want to get into it, though. you can wait for my published work on the topic 
edit: regardless of the question of Marx's own views, which remains at the very least an open question, Marxism is certainly not committed to any such economic reductionism. Nobody thinks about ideology anymore with the old notion of "false consciousness", it's rather more complicated than that.
edit: And can I point out that nobody else has solved the mind-body problem either? So there! 
|
United States41961 Posts
On March 05 2013 09:00 sam!zdat wrote:
Marx is not an economic reductionist, that's a caricature. I'm pretty sure Kwark was trying to deny that economics had anything to do with it.
I don't really want to get into a discussion of base-superstructure theory, since I don't really know what kind of background everyone has in the literature on this topic. For the moment, I just want to say that I'm well aware of the complexity of the issue and this is one of my primary research interests.
edit: if Marx were an economic reductionist, there would be no point in the ideologiekritik
edit: the original point was that the wars of the first half of the 20th century cannot be understood as anything other than the clash of rival capitalist/imperial powers. I stand by that.
If you wish to argue that the Great War happened to make someone a profit then you must explain who these people were and why they believed it would. The result was quite the opposite, the undermining of the economic system, the advent of large scale state control of the economy (needed for total war, continued after the war) and the rise of class consciousness.
Economics were involved to the extent that the economy is involved in everything that happens but the Great War itself was a product of old and outdated ideologies and general incompetence on the part of those in power. I contend that had any of the people making decisions in 1914 understood what they were doing the war would have been avoided, it marked the downfall of the entire system that allowed it to happen, a fact that must be explained if you wish to argue that it was caused by financial motives.
Capitalist powers clashed but that doesn't mean that they clashed because they were capitalist.
|
"to make someone a profit"...?
dear lord that is not what i said at all. Someday people will understand that I am neither a Stalinist nor a conspiracy theorist, and I will die a happy man.
I distinctly remember saying something about "financial crisis" and "collapse of the international system." How you turn that into "sam believes that the Great War was a secret plan for war profiteering" is totally beyond me.
|
United States41961 Posts
I much prefer the "people are stupid" explanation which argues that people in power didn't realise that warfare had been fundamentally changed by the developing technology and simply thought it'd be a good idea. There is a vast wealth of evidence for how thoroughly unprepared for the realities of what the Great War would become people were, from the "give the hun a thrashing, home by Christmas" propaganda to the complete lack of preparedness in the militaries. You don't need underlying reasons to have a war, you just need stupidity in the right places.
|
yeah, that's why it was a disaster, that's doesn't explain why it started and what led to it. "people are stupid" does not explain why a civilization which had enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity for nearly a century suddenly exploded into barbarous warfare.
(edit: they certainly did not "simply think it was a good idea." they had no idea what was happening to them. nobody wanted to go to war, it happened and the diplomats didn't have any clue what was going on.)
read it. it's good:
![[image loading]](http://i43.tower.com/images/mm100460077/great-transformation-karl-polanyi-paperback-cover-art.jpg)
|
United States41961 Posts
Er, unprecedented period of peace and prosperity, are you insane? The Great War was part of the ongoing question of the role the increasingly powerful German state would take in Europe and followed directly on the heels of Prussian intervention in Italy, Denmark and then France itself culminating in the battle of Sedan. I am amazed you would describe this as an era of peace, it was massively unstable and not in a subtle "the signs are there if you look" way, Prussia first challenged Austria for leadership of the German states, then France for central European dominance, that she was then prepared to challenge Britain for European and global dominance isn't especially surprising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
