Fascists Targetting America's Youth

[Nubclear]

The Patriot Act enhances individual liberty by keeping us safe from terrorists.

The Soviet Union enhanced liberty by keeping its people safe from capitalists.

[el freako]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Woah, the USSR had recessions? I never knew that. 1932 was probably caused by Collectivizations of the Kullaks and we know what caused the drop in 1941.

No growth during the war or did they just not keep statisitcs?

Probably didn't keep the stats (from which these estimates are derived btw, the USSR never used GDP as a measure AFAIK)

It's also interesting to see the drop in 1963 and recovery in '64 - related to the cuban missile crisis, or the falling-out with China?

Originally posted by Kidicious
Another possibility is that he meant that the economic growth of Germany was the greatest up until that time.

Well, up until that point it was the fastest 6-year period of growth (8.1% average) - although interestingly the second fastest was under the Weimar Republic in 1923-29 (7.4%), and both those and the 6-year post-war recovery period to 1952 (14.0% average growth) came after large falls which skews the picture somewhat (a much better way is to look at the deviation from a trend)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by el freako
It's also interesting to see the drop in 1963 and recovery in '64 - related to the cuban missile crisis, or the falling-out with China?

This pulls the rug out from underneath Marxism unless there are concrete explanations for each event, such as a bone-headed decision on the part of the leadership or an invasion or whatnot. The whole point of socialism is to do away with business cycles by rationalizing investment and distribution, and if they continue to exist, wow.

[el freako]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This pulls the rug out from underneath Marxism unless there are concrete explanations for each event, such as a bone-headed decision on the part of the leadership or an invasion or whatnot. The whole point of socialism is to do away with business cycles by rationalizing investment and distribution, and if they continue to exist, wow.

Yes there were similar slowdowns in 1972 (0.6% growth) and 1975 (0.3%) and the whole period 1979-81 (when despite the soaring price of oil, the USSR's main export, GDP rose only by an average of 0.2% a year).

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by VJ
What's wrong with fascism, che?

Exhibit A


VJ, there's plenty of oppurtunities for good trolls, but there is a line between being a good troller and being an asshole.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This pulls the rug out from underneath Marxism unless there are concrete explanations for each event, such as a bone-headed decision on the part of the leadership or an invasion or whatnot. The whole point of socialism is to do away with business cycles by rationalizing investment and distribution, and if they continue to exist, wow.

I don't think you can really call it a business cycle. For example, I don't think investment fell off. Earnings from foreign exchange varied from year to year though.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by el freako
Well, up until that point it was the fastest 6-year period of growth (8.1% average) - although interestingly the second fastest was under the Weimar Republic in 1923-29 (7.4%), and both those and the 6-year post-war recovery period to 1952 (14.0% average growth) came after large falls which skews the picture somewhat (a much better way is to look at the deviation from a trend)

btw, the Nazis didn't just pick up the slack. In fact, they made every effort to limit private investment and consumption. They made huge investments in public investment and of course armament.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Hello!

Yes- Parliament (the Commons) could abolish the monarchy. Or appoint a new monarch, like we did in 1688.

So the Commons can vote itself, or the PM, as dictator for life, and the Lords and the monarch would not have a legal instrument to do anything about it?..

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax
My point in this argument is that a fascism is not necessarily bad or evil. Same with Republicans and Communists. It's just certain one's that give the whole group a bad name. Hitler, Ned, and Stalin.

PAX, I once had a good time talking with you here. It is too bad you have junked your sense of civility. You are now on my ignore list.

[Tripledoc]

The growth rates of Germany needs to be divided into infrastructure and consumption, and each subdivided into civilian and military, before a true picture emerges of how succesful a fascist economy can be.

Then the annual deficit has to be subtracted. Was it 50 percent of the budget that had no financial base at some point?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
The growth rates of Germany needs to be divided into infrastructure and consumption, and each subdivided into civilian and military, before a true picture emerges of how succesful a fascist economy can be.

Then the annual deficit has to be subtracted. Was it 50 percent of the budget that had no financial base at some point?

But in a fascist system the state is only important, not the individuals. So the goal of the economy should be to benefit the state only. If a fascist system meets the goals of the state then it has been successfull, but if it has met the goals of individuals then it hasn't.

And the deficit really has not bearing on the situation at all.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


PAX, I once had a good time talking with you here. It is too bad you have junked your sense of civility. You are now on my ignore list.

Get off your high horse Ned.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
But in a fascist system the state is only important, not the individuals. So the goal of the economy should be to benefit the state only. If a fascist system meets the goals of the state then it has been successfull, but if it has met the goals of individuals then it hasn't.

And the deficit really has not bearing on the situation at all.

I can understand that argument, at least the first part.
However in Nazism the volk (the people/race) was the important factor. Hitler at some point stated that frugality was a hindrance to scientific and cultural progress of the volk. It is out of the organic volk that the culture is developing - not, as claimed by the Marxists which he hated, out of the state.

In that case if all the nations resources went the state, then the Hitlerite vision would not be succesful. Of course then it can be argued that Nazism was a corruption of Fascism, or a subset. That is also why he seeked out short decisive wars.

And I would say that a deficit is very important - especially because inflation set in before the war. When the Nazi territory expanded the Reichsmark became legal tender in the occupied territory, significantly reducing the effects of inflation - since the excess in money was made good by adding a larger area of circulation. It might then be said that the deficit was only important in that it meant war would be inevitable.
If for instance Nazi Germany had become involved in a long war in France, it would have meant that the German economy would have crashed very soon.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Woah, the USSR had recessions?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Pax
The answer will be the same every time you ask.
Slavery. treatment of indians. Selling Opium to the chinese(Opium Wars), subjugation of Africa, ME, and asia. To name a few.

So the US' drug war is perfectly legit?