New Poll: critical moment for Germany

[RF]

I do not apologise for my class analysis and insistence on economics as the cause of strife among humans around the world, because it is the only thing that actaully makes sense out of the madness of the 20th century and the bloody opening chapters of the 21st. All wars are fought over economy,from the tribes fighting over the herd, or other foods, through the Roman and Norman conquests hungry for territory from which to feed and keep their own people content, to the feudal kings and queens who could not develop the means of production themselves and sought conquest and viurtual enslavement of foreign peoples as a solution.

Vic Dale

Take away the word class and replace it with race - what do you have?

[RF]

As regards Poland's position on September 1st 1939, the die was cast back on the 29th March that year when Chamberlain made the pact and demonstrated that he would now oppose Hitler. Until that time, Chamberlain had given Hitler every encouragement to expand and this expansion saw the end of France's hegemony in Europe.

Vic Dale

NO. The die was cast when Hitler invaded. Hitler's decision, not Chamberlain, not Stalin and certainly not the Poles, who did not even start to mobilise their Army until the afternoon of the 31st August 1939.

[Vic Dale]

As regards Poland's position on September 1st 1939, the die was cast back on the 29th March that year when Chamberlain made the pact and demonstrated that he would now oppose Hitler. Until that time, Chamberlain had given Hitler every encouragement to expand and this expansion saw the end of France's hegemony in Europe.

Vic Dale

NO. The die was cast when Hitler invaded. Hitler's decision, not Chamberlain, not Stalin and certainly not the Poles, who did not even start to mobilise their Army until the afternoon of the 31st August 1939.

That is not what Churchill thought. Even he saw that war was inevitable once the pact was made.

If you look into all of the discussions between the leaders and their envoys after March '39, you will identify a continuing refrain; when criticised justly for their actions they all say in one way or another "What choice do I have?"

Hitler had taken a slap in the face and now his boasting about military strength would have to be tested or he would have to back down - his military held it's breath, knowing they did not have the correct balance in their armed forces to take on Britain, let alone Britain AND France.

Poland had already openly expressed an intention of invading and occupying the Ukraine. For reasons of it's own, the Polish government wanted to go it alone and now with Britain at her back she could snub Hitler and make her own dispositions regarding this grain-rich land. Hitler could also get stuffed over Danzig and the link road. If Germany was kept in what remained of the chains of Versailles for a bit longer her economic development would be delayed and relatively, Poland's strength would be the greater. It should be noted also that the Polish governement felt it had nothing to fear from Hitler. Her army was strong and she had an airforce with which to defend it. What was lacking was the technical advancement of German arms and tactics. Pland's generals were a bit too cock-sure.

Chamberlain could not withdraw the offer to Poland without bringing further odium down on the heads of himself and his government. He already had Chruchill breathing down his neck. Vacillation at this point would bring his government down. Even a repalcement government would find it hard to extricate itself from this predicament.

When Stalin was taxed about the pact he formed with Hitler, he was accused of playing into Trotsky's hands - proving Trotsky right in all his criticisms of Stalin since he took over the reins of Soviet Russia. All Stalin could do was admit that the accusation was correct, but in mitigation he said, "What choice do I have?" The 1930s purges had been carried out because of Stalin's weakness and the precarious position he and the praesidium found itself, making everyone including Stalin himself, paranoid to the point of insanity, about plots and the preparation of military coups.

France having lost it's dominant position in Europe, could only stand by aghast and watch helpless and belatedly formed the alliance with Poland in Britain's wake, having lost her pact with Russia. She was fast losing allies in Europe and internal strife held her government in a very shakey position.

Until March 19th 1939, Chamberlain had given Hitler no indication other than that he would continue as before, putting no obstacle in his way and then suddenly a volte face. A turn without indicating. Very dangerous on the road and catastrophic in international relations, by all accounts. Chamberlain's actions from the time he attained power could do little more than guarrantee heavy opposition and discontent. He could do little at home to help his people from the continiuing depression. Small undulations in the economic fortunes of Britain came and went but from the start, Chamberlain's government had the look of a wounded duck, hopping form one crisis to another.

Churchill went into detail about the inevitability of war from march onwwards, as I said in an earlier post, and stated quite clearly and categorically that once this pact was made, war could nto be avoided. So if war was inevitable at March 29th Europe's leaders were simply acting out the script written into the pact with Poland and from which none could deviate without serious repercussions at home and abroad.

All hope rested on Hitler backing down and it is now known that plots against him were hatching by the day. His position was extremely precarious in 1939 and if once he was seen to express weakenss internationally, that would be the trigger for a miltary coup. Hitler could not back down. Opinion about him among the generals was split and it is this split which was keeping him alive, hence the pogroms against the Jews.

All of Germany's economic problems were blamed on the Jews and Germany's fortunes can be plotted day to day week by week according to her internal policy toward this persecuted race. Hitler was no different to any other despot - if things went wrong the Jews got it in the neck. A few broken windows a few beatings and an outraged population could be pacified and shown that justice had been done. Until 1941 when the slaughter became mechanised.

It is quite common when economic problems descend on a country for people to look for scapegoats. Political leaders are not slow in letting tempers boil over and if anger can focus on a section of the population and not their incompetence, all the better. Riots have been deliberately provoked in order to get the population to let off steam - after all, riots are much safer than revolution. Ask the czar. Ask the Shah.

Vic Dale

[RF]

I think that most people in Britain in the late 1930's who opposed appeasement regarded war as inevitable. It was merely a matter of when and where the starting gun would be fired. But the die is not cast until it actually does fire - and was fired by a pre-WW1 battleship, of all weapons....

Hitler was in a far stronger position in 1939 than he was in 1938. The Germans had six panzer divisions as against three a year earlier, plus a stronger air force and navy. He had a pact with the USSR and no substantial border defences in Poland to overcome. The only problem was in the West, with hardly any forces of note to defend the incomplete Siegfried Line. But he made a monumental gamble in that the French would not attack - and got clean away with it. The fact that Hitler could get away with such gambles gave him much greater prestige in his own country but more importantly undermined all the opposition against him in the Wehrmacht.
As for Poland, yes I think they were overconfident. But the invasion when it came was lousy timing for the Poles, as their Army was about to undergo a modernisation programme which would (if carried out) have made their resistence more effective. Up to 1939 the USSR was considered the likely enemy and as Poland had been part of Tsarist Russia (like Ukraine) it would be natural for them to look eastwards. However the case is the Poles were taken by surprise, with less than 25% of their troops in position when the Germans attacked, and the unfortunate dislocation of these partly mobilised forces fitted neatly into the German blitzkrieg tactics.

[RF]

As an aside at looking at whether war is inevitable, there are numerous cases of where potential wars could break out but don't. The best example recently would be the Cold War, in that WW3 didn't happen. Instead the conflicts were proxy wars involving intervention in small country conflicts such as Korea or Vietnam.

[RF]

He could do little at home to help his people from the continiuing depression. Small undulations in the economic fortunes of Britain came and went but from the start, Chamberlain's government had the look of a wounded duck, hopping form one crisis to another.

Vic Dale

Actually the economic record of the Chamberlain government wasn't that bad - from 1937 to 1939 was a period of economic growth, with falling unemployment, and not just due to re-armament, but the the emergence of new industries, particulary in the Midlands and the south of England, in particular motor vehicles and housebuilding. In fact that period was marked by low inflation as well as high rates of economic growth, something that governments over the last 40 years in Britain have struggled to emulate. Certainly Chamberlain's record as Chancellor of the Exchequer was better than that of Gordon Brown....

[Vic Dale]

Chancellors of the Exchecquer can't control the enconomy. They don't have enough levers. The bluster of Brown (the "Prudent") is so much guff, he is no more competent than the others, he has been lucky that is all. It should be noted that his skill resides in doing nothing. He even gave the Bank of England it's independence from government control.

Capitalist production relies on blind market forces and any attempt to drive it will, cause worse problems. That is why the planned economy and capitalism just don't mix.

The politicians of the 1930s lied to the people just as they do today. Identifying an improvement in one or two sectors when the rest of the economy is in decline or stagnant, makes as much sense as spotting that the stern of Titanic was floating well in comparison to the bow and the ship therefore in a healthy state.

Inflation is caused by banks and governments, the former printing money in the form of stocks and bonds and the latter using them as collateral to lend even more. The use of this fictitious capital is the cause of inflation, yet when it comes to adjusting and paying for all this the government blames workers and systematically robs them by holding down wages. The billionaires and their system cause the slumps and the workers invariably have to pay for them.

There are generally more millionaires and billionaires created during a slump than in a boom, because the instability provides the conditions for a more accelerated concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands. The job of the politicians is to draw attention away from this fact and convince us on the one hand that everything is rosey and on the other that we must tight OUR belts. The indicators of this current crisiis have been evident for a long time, yet the politicians have kept us in the dark and permitted the banks to get away with murder. Note how all the banks which have gone and will go bust, paid their top executives fat bonusses in advance of the crisis.

Some democracy we have when every four or five years we get to choose between one bunch of lying monkeys and another.

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

Vic Dale

[lwd]

...Capitalist production relies on blind market forces and any attempt to drive it will, cause worse problems....

1) market forces are not blind. Indeed they may be the best determinat of what is needed or at least desired. The planning exibited in the US economy during WWII did a very good job of avoiding serious problems while producing a lot of material.

...Inflation is caused by banks and governments, the former printing money in the form of stocks and bonds and the latter using them as collateral to lend even more. The use of this fictitious capital is the cause of inflation, ...

Stocks and bonds are not money nor are they fictitious capital.

There are generally more millionaires and billionaires created during a slump than in a boom, ...

Care to back that up with some data?

[RF]

There is a lot in Vic's last post that I would agree with. So you are a closet monetarist Vic!

Chancellors do have great leverage over the economy, and market forces are not blind - even if we did have what the economists call ''perfect competition.''
As for Brown the bluffer - well I agree exactly.

Where we differ is on the solution to the econmic problems caused by politicians mismanaging capitalist economies - you seek a socialist solution, I would seek a capitalist solution in the context of a mixed economy.
As for the economic recovery in the late 1930's it was across most of the economy, not just a few sectors, and is often overlooked in the history of the 1930's. The main problem 1931 onwards was very high unemployment, what the economists called ''structural unemployment'' which was down to a lack of mobility of labour. Tough if you are one of those unemployed, but governments today are wiser.

[RF]

Some democracy we have when every four or five years we get to choose between one bunch of lying monkeys and another.

Vic Dale

But you still have the opportunity to vote in alternatives, and if everybody voted that way there would be change.

The only thing that prevents the election of a Socialst Workers Party government in Britain is
1) the SWP not providing the candidates
2) people not voting for them when they have the opportunity

and that is democracy.

You can have change if the majority wants it.

[Vic Dale]

Stocks and bonds are used as capital assets by banks, against which they can lend to prospective borrowers. The percentage of what they can lend in relation to their capital assetsis called the liquidity ratio. Obviously they can't lend 100% or they would be vulnerable to any undulation in the market demand for money, so they are limited to a percentage which is considered by the regulator - Bank of England or Federal Reseve - as a safe figure. However, if the banks buy stocks and bonds from the governement, as an incentive they are permitted leeway on the liquidity ratio, meaning they can lend a greater percentage of their capital assets. The goverrent has printed money without actually declaring such.

Money which has been printed and which does not represent actual production IS fictitious. When a bank lends money it writes a series of zeros on a piece of paper, which enables the borrower to spend more than they actually have. The bank then pockets a return in the form of interest. Nobody has produced anything to warrant this reward, so where has the value come from? Bank activity in and of itself creates fictitious capital.

Money is an essential method of circulating commodities, but the banks sit astride this circulation creaming off a cut for themselves without actually producing anything. That is inflationary because when money is permitted to create money the capital generated is fictitious.

We have had an economic crisis running since 1997, but instead of openly facing this crisis it has been bought off year on year with credit. The only problem with credit is it has eventually to be paid back. The banks all seemed to have forgotten this and now the crisis genie is out of the bottle, but being far too fat, it won't go back into the bottle again.

A few months ago, representatives of the federal Reserve, the Bush administration and their equivalent in Britain were all crowing about how many new millionaires had been created during the past year, asserting that this was a sign that there was no economic crisis. One has only to look at the way the stock market is swinging - really wild - to know that billions are being made by some whilst the bulk of people who have shares risk going to the wall. They see their assets dwindling until they realise that if they do not sell they will lose all. It is this turning point which the top speculators are watching for and they will make a killing. You can bet on that, even if you dare not bet on the stock market. It was the same after 1929 and from that we can predict that we will relive some fot he worst aspects of the 1930s.

This is exactly the way it panned out in the 1930s btw; a bank failure followed by a wobble on the stock exchanges, followed by a period of stability followed by the stox crash. It took a year or two for the crap to begin pouring out of the system but the process had a certain inevitability which those with half an eye open can see now. Some of us saw it much earlier.

The idea that Chamberlain and others could steer the ship of state through the mess is laughable. They lurched from crisis to crisis and were utterly driven by events - just like the donkeys who hold the reins at present.

When I say that market forces are blind, it is not an indictment, but a statement of fact. The market is an automatic process which causes prices to rise when shortage of supply grips the world and also causes prices to drop in times of surfeit. Atomic theory describes an automatic process, it is neither good nor bad, but it is blind and without concisous will or subject to conscious control.

Notably, the only way a governmet can influence market forces is by buying the product, or releasing reserves onto the market. Mostly this is done with the money supply. They cannot cause a boom in any particular field of production, unless they are prepared to spend governemnt money buyng ships for example, or in the case of Japan in the 1990s commisioning the building of fancy bridges. They are measures of desperation and a relatively frank admission that capitalism cannot help itself and needs a boost. They also introduce import controls,to protect their own industries, knowing full well that it will cause a backlash, yet they are eventually driven to this all the same.

The value of a war in times of economic crisis, is that governments,through war credits,are allowed to spend just what they like on arms and although you cannot run an economy on arms production this is precisely what they try to do and it really does ease the siti uation, though atv trrible cost in lives. The masses of people tired and fed up with the daily misery of slump find themselves eager for war, if only to rid themselves of the monotony of daily life and the prospect of good wages offered by jobs in the arms and other industries connected with the war are all too attractive. It doesn't pay to idealise the masses. They do let themselves down. Remember how eager they were for the Falklands and to get at Saddam? It's a different story now, but given a few years of slump and they will be back to their eagerness to have a go once more. And a war would definitely let the politicians off the hook.

That is one of the consequences of the world economic slump in the 1930s. WWI was still fresh in the mind, yet it took very little to convince the people of Britain and France, Germany and Russia, that war was again necessary. I am not confident that the lessons of the past have been learned and absorbed. WWII did not begin as a world war, but within 2 years it bacame one. That is the danger we face. Our politicians are just as stupid as those of the 1930s and they may very well embroil us in an "unavoidable war". Though only a short one - be over by xmas.

So Britain was doing well but for all the unemployment eh? This is precisly the sort of nonsense I would expect of the 1930s politicians. If workers are idle they are economically disengaged and unable to play their part as consumers. The workers and their families are the bulk consumers, so if a sizeable section of them are not buying, the economy canot grow.

I am nothing to do with the SWP! I have nothing in common with those idiots. I never met a single one who could put a gogent statement of policy together and though they quote Trotsky they clearly have not read him - except the foreword perhaps.

You won't change much on the basis of one vote every five years. That really isn't participation is it.

I am neither Friedmanist nor Keynsian, not a monetarist, nor a pump-primer. I view Thatcher's monetarist lunacy, which cost Britain 1/3 of it's manufactuing base and Darling's stupidity pushing barrow-loads of money towards the banks with equal contempt. Thatcher gave us a "fitter leaner" Britain - you know, high unemployement and a shift from manufacturing to banking and Darling has given us some of the fattest fat-cats in Western Europe and to that extent, they are tinkers and their meddling has and may well cause haemorage.

As I have not presented my political programme here I find it strange to hear commentary about it. My intention regarding the capitalist economy was to try and show that WWII was inevitale and that it's cause was economic - not bloody mindedness.

Vic Dale

[RF]

I am nothing to do with the SWP! I have nothing in common with those idiots.

You won't change much on the basis of one vote every five years. That really isn't participation is it.

I am neither Friedmanist nor Keynsian, not a monetarist, nor a pump-primer.

As I have not presented my political programme here I find it strange to hear commentary about it. My intention regarding the capitalist economy was to try and show that WWII was inevitale and that it's cause was economic - not bloody mindedness.

Vic Dale

My reference to the Socialist Workers Party was purely as an example of a political organisation dedicated to changing the status quo, who do from time to time contest parliamentary elections and who if they did get a parliamentary majority would implement their revolution. I did not seek to imply that you or anyone else supported them. I could equally have used Sinn Fein (in Northern Ireland during the 1970's to the 1990's) or the Workers Revolutionary Party, or the National Front or the British National Party on the grounds that they oppose the capitalist status quo and parliamentary system. All it takes for the change they seek is for their election. Otherwise why did the Anti-Nazi League oppose the far right?

Whether you can change things on the basis of a single election has never been tried. Voters in the US have had the opportunity to elect radicals, or people with more extreme policies, such as Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, John Schmitz, George McGovern or Ralph Nader, but they have always voted them down. What would have happened with the Cold War and the situation in Vietnam if the US electorate had decided not to vote in Nixon in 1968 but elected George Wallace as president instead. This is not intended as a rhetorical question, I asked it of my university political sociology lecturer back in 1981, who was an SWP supporter (but not member) who replied that as Nixon was once a McCarthyite and Wallace an opportunist a Wallace presidency would not have been substantially different from Nixon.
Maybe - but the voters are savvy enough not to give it a try. But if enough wanted to then these alternatives could be elected.

[RF]

As I have not presented my political programme here I find it strange to hear commentary about it. My intention regarding the capitalist economy was to try and show that WWII was inevitale and that it's cause was economic - not bloody mindedness.

Vic Dale

I don't think that WW2 was the product of economics or the general economic situation - otherwise it would have started in the 1920's. I take what I believe is a more straight forward view - wars are started by people who fire the gun. Ideology or economics can be used as the excuse, but they are not the cause.

[lwd]

.... However, if the banks buy stocks and bonds from the governement, as an incentive they are permitted leeway on the liquidity ratio, meaning they can lend a greater percentage of their capital assets. The goverrent has printed money without actually declaring such.

Your point is? They haven't actually printed money and this is just about as open as the printing process anyway. Besides earlier you said that banks printed money.

Money which has been printed and which does not represent actual production IS fictitious.

Again that doesn't seam to be the definiton of money or fictitious most of us are working with. Money is in essence a promissary note (at one time it was something of real value but those days are long past). It has nothing to do with representing "actual production"

When a bank lends money it writes a series of zeros on a piece of paper, which enables the borrower to spend more than they actually have. The bank then pockets a return in the form of interest. Nobody has produced anything to warrant this reward, so where has the value come from? Bank activity in and of itself creates fictitious capital.

Presumably the investor spends the loan on something of value. In some cases this allows production in others not. The ability to get the loan and maintain liquidity that has value so it is not fictitious capital.

Money is an essential method of circulating commodities, but the banks sit astride this circulation creaming off a cut for themselves without actually producing anything. That is inflationary because when money is permitted to create money the capital generated is fictitious.

Banks perform an essential service. In at least some sense services are production. It's not at all clear that to me that money is creating money in the cases above.

We have had an economic crisis running since 1997,

Why choose that date in particular?

..The idea that Chamberlain and others could steer the ship of state through the mess is laughable. They lurched from crisis to crisis and were utterly driven by events - just like the donkeys who hold the reins at present.

That's one interpretation. Another is that they did at least a halfway decent job.

When I say that market forces are blind, it is not an indictment, but a statement of fact.

No it's a statment of opinion.

The market is an automatic process which causes prices to rise when shortage of supply grips the world and also causes prices to drop in times of surfeit. Atomic theory describes an automatic process, it is neither good nor bad, but it is blind and without concisous will or subject to conscious control.

But suply and demand are controled by consious will, at least to some extent, and they govern the market. It is hardly an automatic process in any case as their is considerable effect due to anticipation of supply and demand as well as what is actually there.

Notably, the only way a governmet can influence market forces is by buying the product, or releasing reserves onto the market.

There are a number of others such as: taxes, quotas, proscription, subsidies, etc.

... My intention regarding the capitalist economy was to try and show that WWII was inevitale and that it's cause was economic - not bloody mindedness....

Certainly at some economics played a large part but hardly inevitable up until it actually started. I will admit that the closer you get to the shooting starting the harder it would have been to avoid but right up to the invasion of Poland Hitler could have avoided the war.

[Bgile]

Free markets only work really well when they are free. It's a nice theory, just as Communism was a theory that appealed to many but didn't work well in the real world.

So far, Capitalism has been the most successful model which served to raise people's standard of living, but there has been so much consolidation lately that monopolistic forces are becoming more prevalent. There has also been a greater concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few, and that has it's own problems and dangers.