US Politics: Confederacy vs Nazis vs USSR

[Phaing]

Catching up and I have realized this is the most misnamed thread title ever.

Maybe just a way to avoid talking about all the other stuff going on in Politics today?

[1918me]

@ Shryke

Wow, is that a quote. Not that it's too surprising, but it's something to behold.

Still torn on what I want in 2016. Love the possibility of Clinton delivering a Johnson-on-Goldwater ass-whooping, but I'd so prefer Warren.

I agree on Warren, although I'm still not sure how good her chances are compared to Clinton, should she run.

[sToNED_CAT]

Warren is just a populist, who knows nothing about economics. TARP wasn't that big loss to taxpayers at all. They got almost all money back, while serious banking crisis was averted. Does she really believes banking sector going bankrupt would better for economy and "Main Street"? And I wonder if homeowners would even agree to "bailout" with similar conditions - basically a loan than needs to be fully repaid in few years? And now she's trying to lower interest rates for college students, because they "deserve it" and it will make colleges "more affordable". Probably doesn't realize, that it would result simply in colleges increasing tuition until supply and demand are in balance again.

Oh, and the reports of the devastating sequestration impact are in. One employee was fired.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/sequestration-cost-only-one-job-entire-government-/

[Durckad]

Warren doesn't seem to have as much of a household name as Clinton does. Her success would depend upon how she builds up her name in the intervening years and what train of loonies the GOP trots out when the time comes. However, despite her lesser chances, I'd much rather see her run than Clinton, for a variety of reasons.

If 2016 comes down to a Bush against a Clinton, I will be fucking disappointed in my country.

[Shryke]

Warren is just a populist, who knows nothing about economics. TARP wasn't that big loss to taxpayers at all. They got almost all money back, while serious banking crisis was averted. Does she really believes banking sector going bankrupt would better for economy and "Main Street"? And I wonder if homeowners would even agree to "bailout" with similar conditions - basically a loan than needs to be fully repaid in few years?

She may be populist, but she's certainly not ignorant about economics. You also isn't opposed to TARP, just the way it was handled such that it favoured banks over homeowners. I also don't expect you to remember that she was part of the oversight committee that is a huge reason TARP wasn't a huge money loser. Because, of course, you can't even read the link posted properly which puts forward nothing like what you just claimed was her opinion.

She is 100% correct, as has been born out over the last 6 years, that the US government's handling of the financial crisis and it's aftermath was a light slap on the bum and a money-rich handy for the investment class and Wall St and a boot-on-face stamping for the average american.

And now she's trying to lower interest rates for college students, because they "deserve it" and it will make colleges "more affordable". Probably doesn't realize, that it would result simply in colleges increasing tuition until supply and demand are in balance again.

Actually she wants to do it because there's no reason the government should be trying to make a profit off of college students. Beyond that, your assertion about "supply and demand" is laughable, provably wrong given the tons of other highly subsidized post-secondary education systems around the world that don't exhibit this problem you mention and so would simply seem to displays your own ignorance of economics.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Some positive things about the USSR:

- Universal compulsory education. Millions of illiterates learnt to read.

- Suppression of diseases via universal access to healthcare

- In WWI, Russian soldiers were fighting machine guns with pitch-forks. In WWII, they beat back the largest invasion in human history.

- Related to the above, the crash-industrialisation took the country out of the middle ages, and into something resembling modernity wiithin a very short space of time.

- Electrification of the railways

- Women in the military.

- Funded liberation movements in Africa, including the ANC, at a time when the ANC had zero chance of success.

- Guaranteed jobs.

- As of the 1970s, a lower prison population per capita than the US.

Perhaps its most important legacy (apart from defeating the Nazis) was to guarantee the political security of social services in the West: it represented an ever-present threat in the event of the dismantling of the Welfare State.

So, yes, there was good in that regime, as well as the bad.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

medvedev's let history judge lays blame on both kulaks and the soviet state for grain procurement problems in 1927 (loc. cit. at 77). that's a few years out from the famine of the early 30s (as to "episodes of mass starvation," there's really only three in soviet history: early 20s, early 30s, and post-WWII). i'm not aware of any non-stalinist non-propaganda argument that the early 30s famine is solely or primarily the fault of the peasants.

it's somewhat of an insult to interlocutors on the one hand and to the wealthy and middle peasants of the soviet union on the other to suggest that the issue is one-sided. of course the state was abusive, but also of course there was resistance. we may or may not agree that the resistance was legitimate--but it can hardly be disputed that many peasants preferred to slaughter stocks and sabotage grains than allow them to be seized by the state. i suspect that many of our anti-soviets here will applaud this nihilism as legitimate resistance. (should also holders of chattel slaves in the US, as legitimate resistance, have slaughtered those properties when the united states expropriated the slaveholders of same, or is that a despotic inroad that we now appreciate?)

rather than blithely suggesting that collectivization is what caused the famine, we can of course be serious and examine what actually happened. certainly there was abuses and overreaching by the state. no need to be glib about it and act as though it were as simple as uncle joe signing an order--there were furious debates about these policies. certainly also the peasants contributed to the problem with nihilistic resistance. it does not help to conflate dekulakization with collectivization on the one hand or the famine on the other. dekulalkization involved first the levying of tax, then loss of suffrage, and then expropriation and/or exile and/or murder, depending on the level of involvement with actual resistance acitivities. there was live class warfare ongoing in the countryside during those years--though the state went crazy and arrested day laborers on occasion as kulaks because they had at one time hired an assistant or engaged in speculative trading. it's nuts.

To be frank, you are grossly misrepresenting Medvedev's position regarding Kulaks and the grain procurement issues faced by the Soviet Union in 1927. Medvedev makes very clear that the reluctance of the well-to-do peasantry to sell their grain to the state was rooted in both the humiliating legacy of "War Communism" ("The gentry's estates, which had been the basic source of marketed grain, were liquidated. Under "war communism" a severe blow had also been dealt to kulak farms, which before the war had provided a substantial quantity of grain for the market." p.213) and also the shortfalls of Soviet economic policy ("In 1927 the well-to-do elements int he countryside accumulated a great deal of currency with which it was impossible to buy the goods they needed. In such circumstances it is not surprising that the principal possessors of grain surpluses, the kulaks and the well-to-do middle peasants, had no immediate interest in selling their grain surpluses to the state, especially at the low fixed prices." p. 216). According to Medvedev the Soviet state overpriced "secondary products and industrial crops, for which the state paid fairly high prices."

Medvedev approvingly cites Anastas Mikoyan's discussion of the grain procurement issues, in which he was characterized as "virtually admitting that the shortages in grain procurement were due to the oversights and mistakes of the government" (p.218).

Shortly thereafter, Stalin's "sharp to turn to the left" in agricultural policy resulted in a "wave of confiscations and violence toward wealthy peasants throughout the entire country. (p.218). Medvedev concludes that "Today it is clear that the decision to apply "extraordinary measures" in the winter and spring of 1927-1928 was extremely hasty and mistaken." (p.219).

What you obnoxiously refer to as "nihilistic resistance" to Stalinist violence is actually characterized by Medvedev as a type of protective, self-liquidation ("many kulaks 'liquidated themselves'... they sold their basic means of production... middle peasants had not incentive to increase production, since they might then be labeled "kulaks.") (p.220).

The "sharp turn left" in Soviet policy punished peasants for producing too much - so they produced less so as not to be murdered, completely expropriated, or exiled. That's not nihilistic - that's self-protective.

medvedev notes that:

(loc. cit. at 69). part of this issue is the various trade embargo policies in the west regarding soviet imports--though by the time of the global crisis of the 30s, they were willing to accept grains. the issue here (which is also the issue with the GLF as far as i'm concerned) is the sale of grains on the foreign market at profit rather than returning that produce to the producers. this is a capitalist policy, and it reflects insufficient socialism, rather than too much. the british india famines of the 19th century also arose out of export policy. i don't mean to sound anti-world-market, because i'm not--but the notion that these famines are "because commies!" is as puerile as is the notion that they are not political, which is the argument that the maoists put forth at one point regarding GLF--BAD WEATHER! SORRIES!--the weather is an issue in all famines, but they are always already political events. because of that, those who oversee the problem are almost always responsible for some policy failure. the key, for me, is locating the policy and principles thereunder responsible for the failure within that concrete historical constellation.

as to the drop in productivity associated with the famine--assuming arguendo that there was a drop in productivity and that it is caused by the policy of busting up the peasants, why the intensely political decision of simply electing it as "the" cause of the famine? that's a bit dogmatic, no?

Except... I never argued "because Commies" nor did I argue "too much socialism." I didn't make a "dogmatic" argument. I never alleged there was "too little capitalism." I made a specific claim about the Soviet Union and a particular set of policies - not capitalism generally, not socialism generally, not communism generally. That you chose to read these things into what I said indicates more about your ideological leanings than mine.

**Edited to add - all of my citations are from the revised and expanded edition of Medvedev's "Let History Judge"

[sToNED_CAT]

She may be populist, but she's certainly not ignorant about economics. You also isn't opposed to TARP, just the way it was handled such that it favoured banks over homeowners. I also don't expect you to remember that she was part of the oversight committee that is a huge reason TARP wasn't a huge money loser. Because, of course, you can't even read the link posted properly which puts forward nothing like what you just claimed was her opinion.

She is 100% correct, as has been born out over the last 6 years, that the US government's handling of the financial crisis and it's aftermath was a light slap on the bum and a money-rich handy for the investment class and Wall St and a boot-on-face stamping for the average american.

Actually she wants to do it because there's no reason the government should be trying to make a profit off of college students. Beyond that, your assertion about "supply and demand" is laughable, provably wrong given the tons of other highly subsidized post-secondary education systems around the world that don't exhibit this problem you mention and so would simply seem to displays your own ignorance of economics.

Yes, there's lot of complaints about how the average people were screwed up by bailouts. But do you believe homeowners would agree to deal similar to banks? True it was defacto interest free loan, but it was supposed to be fully repaid in few years. Of course other reason why banks got such a deal was that everyone knew they should be profitable in just few years, while average homeowner had far higher risk of default. Also it is absurd to say, that money went to banks just to benefit rich. Bankrupt banks would have damaged economy far more, like in 30ties, bailing out banks was hardly only just in their bankowners interest. Functional financial system is absolutely necessary for economy, if banks suffer everyone else suffers too.

Warren doesn't want government just to make no profit on loans. She wants to lower the interest rate down under 1%, because the evil banks get it (of course ignoring the fact that those are short term loans with almost no chance of default) ,which is absurd and would create huge deficits and more irresponsible borrowing.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/elizabeth-warren-finds-way-to-inflate-higher-ed-bubble-even-more/

And while some other countries don't exhibit the tuition inflation problem, US certainly does, mostly because of total lack of regulation. Universities don't just cover their expenses, they in vast majority of cases charge students as much as they can based on demand. Of course you can deal with that by regulating the cost of tuition, but I have yet to see any politician saying he wants to order universities, how much can they charge their students and that includes Warren.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Having a fort in their territory usually is considered aggression as well isn't it? Whatever state the fort was in seceded so the fort and all those American troops in it that refused to leave would be very provoking wouldn't it?

The Fort was federal property, not state property. There was thus absolutely no obligation to hand the thing over.

[sologdin]

nestor, i don't think you're really disagreeing with me, except for your normal needlessly combative quixotic surliness. of course the state was at fault--though i doubt medvedev thinks it is anything other than nihilistic to destroy agricultural produce just because someone might seize them. (and i doubt that i've misrepresented anything when the page that i've cited specifies peasant sabotage and state policy error in 1927, and at other points details peasant resistance.)

if i unfairly lumped you in with the mccarthyists, apologies. if your argument was simply that the primary cause of the early 30s famine is state policy error, gotcha.

[Galactus]

Azrur,

I think the non-planters followed the lead of the planters. There is a reason why areas where the planter class was weakest (the Appalachians for example) tended to have strong Union sympathies.

There's also the fact that even people who weren't directly slave owners were integrated into the slaveholdig economy. (Eg. producing goods for the planters, growing food for the plantations who weren't self-sufficient in that regard, working with transporting and handling cotton, or importing goods to sell in exchange for the proceeds from the slave plantations, etc. etc.)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

On that level the north benefited from the slave economy too. Bankers, clothing manufacturerers, cotton exporters in the North all derived monetary benefit from slavery.

[The Iceman of the North]

I am no American historian or sympathizer but wouldn't it be a response to British agression?

Eh, no, not unless you equate 'taxation without representation' as aggression. The American Revolution was an armed uprising to overthrow the British rule, if that's not aggression, I don't know what is.

[Galactus]

Galactus,

On that level the north benefited from the slave economy too. Bankers, clothing manufacturerers, cotton exporters in the North all derived monetary benefit from slavery.

Definitely. But the South's economy was more or less entirely geared towards supporting the slave-economy (which was the most profitable sector of the US economy at the time) the Northern economy was integrated into that as well, but not to the same extent.

And my point was actually that there were valid economic reasons for southerners to care about the preservation fo slavery even if they did not themselves own slaves.

That was in the mid-1800's ofc. In say, 1750, the northern economy was way more tied into the slave economy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

No argument.

[eta]

That said I see the act of secession as more about preserving the power of planter patriarchs and families than as purely economic. Yes, money was part of their power but so was the priviledge surrounding the pseudo-feudal structure of planter society. The up-country was more free form and less hierarchical than the lowlands as such the planters were weaker there and pro-Union sentiment stronger.

[Horza]

Eh, no, not unless you equate 'taxation without representation' as aggression. The American Revolution was an armed uprising to overthrow the British rule, if that's not aggression, I don't know what is.

azrur was Mazigh and is no more.

[MerenthaClone]

TARP didn't feel right. It felt awful. It was like you were giving money to the very gamblers that bet the house and lost or something.

But it probably had to happen given the systemic situation of the time. If people didn't like, my opinion is that it was the system that was the problem and not the solution.

The entire global financial system was getting paralyzed with fear. Lehmen fucked up big, but they even got unfairly scapegoated. They just happened to be the bank that came after the Bear Stearns bailout but before the moment of realization that the whole system needed a bailout. So they are viewed as the straw the broke the camel's back, but maybe they were just the domino that was painted red or something.

And then nobody in the financial industry was jailed for their actions. Huzzah!

Seriously though, yes, TARP probably did have to happen given the systemic situation. But the focus on actually changing that system was pretty weak. Dodd-Frank exists, but...eh. Better than nothing I guess? There's still this ridiculous idea that we can regulate companies and banks by fining them for amounts smaller than they make by breaking laws.

[Glaurung]

In that case the very act of secession is an act of aggression. (which is usually the way these things are)

Yeah...no kidding. You're essentially telling the country...uh...that's not your land anymore. We're taking it.

It's definitely agression.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I think it's not a stretch to say that a system where the government indirectly funds universities without regulating how much money the universities take may result it the universities taking more money.

[BloodRider]

azrur was Mazigh and is no more.

Dammit. Where do I send the chowder?