Re: How effective was the New Deal?
Posted: 2019-03-17 03:21am
BTW, 8 billion or 20 billion or 100 billion is perfectly sustainable amount of population for Earth given some technological developments and economic reogranization.
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/
The argument could be made that without the revitalization of the American economy provided by the New Deal though, the US would not have responded as effectively and competently to WWII as they did.K. A. Pital wrote: ↑2019-03-18 04:32am Sure; in the smaller context of getting US capitalism out of a deep crisis, it was effective. In this small context one could also find WWII effective, perhaps much more so than the New Deal as such.
Yeah, that's my bad. Though I think what you replied to Broomstick with is pretty garbage.Gandalf wrote: ↑2019-03-16 01:28pmI did reply. I asked if Broomstick would be okay with saying Naziism didn't kill people, but people did. The one to which you replied, but Broomstick didn't. Please pay attention to the content of your posts. Also, if you think that "going after you" generates internet points of any value, I think that says more about you and your own vanity than you may realise.
I think you've asked the wrong questions and asked them badly in this case.I was trying to work out Broomstick's odd rationale by finding out what was at the root of it, through asking varied questions to see if the rationale held out. I find this better than the usual internet arguing of people making statements at each other, because a series of specific questions makes it easier to examine something. It's something I enjoyed doing when I was a teacher. When a student offered an answer which sounded odd, it wound up being more productive to question how they got there, so the issue that caused the questionable final answer could be solved on a fundamental level. Sometimes they were approaching things from a fantastic and interesting perspective, and other times they didn't do the readings and made shit up.
So, is it fair to say you dislike modern systems of government and the fact that as individuals it's hard to change anything?Imperialism, capitalism, and entitled shits on the internet. Imperialism wiped out my people (Indigenous Australians) and keeps us as second class citizens in our own lands. Capitalism keeps perpetuating this problem (among others listed by K A Pital in this thread). Entitled shits on the internet are just an irritant, but I like listing things in threes.
You've shown me a single small nation with no aspirations of improving their standing in the international community barely surviving. That's not an example you can expect other nations to follow especially given that other communist nations aren't following that lead. Also, do you think that Cuba will maintain this equalibrium in the face of greater international interest and investment?K. A. Pital wrote: ↑2019-03-16 04:00pmYou asked me if we could deal with overconsumption better than capitalists. I have show you that it is possible. A military is necessary for only two things: capitalist, imperialistic conquests - or to prevent from being conquered by other imperialists. The rest of your objection is “I don’t care that the reality of sustainable consumption is that we can have food, shelter, education and literacy, but not obscene exuberant riches, so I want to destroy the world”. Ok, go right ahead.
I can agree with this. It was WWII that really revitalized the US economy. However, I would in no way advocate starting a world war to achieve such an economic solution.K. A. Pital wrote: ↑2019-03-18 04:32am Sure; in the smaller context of getting US capitalism out of a deep crisis, it was effective. In this small context one could also find WWII effective, perhaps much more so than the New Deal as such.
That's like asking if math kills people.
Halfwit says I've done bad things and offers no substantiation. Day continues on.
I dislike some systems of government, but their modernity isn't their defining trait.So, is it fair to say you dislike modern systems of government and the fact that as individuals it's hard to change anything?Imperialism, capitalism, and entitled shits on the internet. Imperialism wiped out my people (Indigenous Australians) and keeps us as second class citizens in our own lands. Capitalism keeps perpetuating this problem (among others listed by K A Pital in this thread). Entitled shits on the internet are just an irritant, but I like listing things in threes.
Your tone on this subject seems inconsistent in this thread, so I'll put it this way; do ideas have agency? By which I mean all ideas, from this thread's ones, to the idea of sabermetrics in baseball. It's certainly way more interesting if you say no.Broomstick wrote: ↑2019-03-19 09:15am That's like asking if math kills people.
No, math doesn't kill people, but it can be used by people to kill other people.
"Nazism" the ideology, sitting in a book or manifesto doesn't kill people. People using that ideology do kill people. Human followers of that ideology are called "Nazis" and Nazi human beings do kill people.
Only capitalists wage wars of aggression?K. A. Pital wrote: ↑2019-03-16 04:00pmYou asked me if we could deal with overconsumption better than capitalists. I have show you that it is possible. A military is necessary for only two things: capitalist, imperialistic conquests - or to prevent from being conquered by other imperialists. The rest of your objection is “I don’t care that the reality of sustainable consumption is that we can have food, shelter, education and literacy, but not obscene exuberant riches, so I want to destroy the world”. Ok, go right ahead.Jub wrote: ↑2019-03-16 09:04amSo a nation under heavy embargo but with no real need to build up a military can just barely manage to scrape by, and that's your best example? A nation where you can bring in things like pencils and spare underwear and trade it to the locals as better than cash, a success?
I countered with the Afghan War and the Korean War, examples of communist regimes waging aggressive war, which contradicts this assertion. How can a communist country wage a capitalist war?K. A. Pital wrote:A military is necessary for only two things: capitalist, imperialistic conquests - or to prevent from being conquered by other imperialists.
The existence of capitalism somewhere is to blame for all war, even war waged by communist nations? Were the causes of all the wars that predate capitalism retroactively caused by capitalism too? Now, by your statement, clearly you think when the last capitalist country is ground to dust, there will be no war. When the inevitable war occurs, will the cause be "capitalism once existed"? Wow, that takes some impressive mental gymnastics.K. A. Pital wrote:Yes, so as long as capitalism still exists, such wars can also occur.
The same reasons that all nations go to war: resources, religion, marital infidelity, spite, etc.K. A. Pital wrote:But what is the reason for war between communist nations?
How does this contradict my assertion? A military is only necessary to either conquer (imperialism) or protect yourself from being conquered. The fact that some communist states have used the military for other purposes, e.g. intervention as the one in Afghanistan - and you could also bring Vietnam into it, does not relate to the fact that a military is still only necessary for two things.houser2112 wrote:I countered with the Afghan War and the Korean War, examples of communist regimes waging aggressive war, which contradicts this assertion. How can a communist country wage a capitalist war?
No, you interpret this wrong. Wars that predate capitalism were caused by feudalism (feudal fragmentation), or its late-state conversion to absolutism, because the foundations of these wars were in the feudal society: both in the basis (possession of land as a driving vehicle for the Crusades) and in the superstructure (feudal rule, dynastic wars for control over the lands and serfs). Wars between communism and capitalism are caused by the fact it strives to replace capitalism, much like it once replaced feudalism. It does not mean capitalism is necessarily „to blame“ for such events, anymore than historical movement itself could be blamed.The existence of capitalism somewhere is to blame for all war, even war waged by communist nations? Were the causes of all the wars that predate capitalism retroactively caused by capitalism too? Now, by your statement, clearly you think when the last capitalist country is ground to dust, there will be no war. When the inevitable war occurs, will the cause be "capitalism once existed"? Wow, that takes some impressive mental gymnastics.
As communism is aiming to establish a united world civilization, there would be no resource which it does not have, which is inaccessible to it. Also, communism geared towards sustainable development- as in my example- may actually not need excess resources for its system, which removes the foundation of most imperialist wars. Religion under communism is a private matter of individuals and may not become in any way a part of state policy. This is why religious wars under communism are not happening, but they very much do under nationalist (both national-liberal and fascist) rule. Marital infidelities are no longer a cause for war even under capitalism! You must be smart enough to understand both the pretext and the real cause of wars.The same reasons that all nations go to war: resources, religion, marital infidelity, spite, etc.
IMO a real key here (roughly speaking) is whether or not a form of natural selection is at play when it comes to political and economic structures. If so then the political and economic systems that are the most competitive will inevitably become the dominant types. Of course, what the most competitive political and economic systems are at a given moment of time is subject to change given the social, economic and environmental pressures etc. of the day.K. A. Pital wrote: As communism is aiming to establish a united world civilization, there would be no resource which it does not have, which is inaccessible to it. Also, communism geared towards sustainable development- as in my example- may actually not need excess resources for its system, which removes the foundation of most imperialist wars. Religion under communism is a private matter of individuals and may not become in any way a part of state policy. This is why religious wars under communism are not happening, but they very much do under nationalist (both national-liberal and fascist) rule. Marital infidelities are no longer a cause for war even under capitalism! You must be smart enough to understand both the pretext and the real cause of wars.
Of course, if communist nations start competing with each other, wars can happen, because such a structure is similar to a capitalist market. But it is my conviction that petty nationalism can be overcome eventually, much like feudal loyalties were overcome in the past.
I don't have any statistics to back this up, but it always seemed telling that the two main production centers for the Manhattan Project, Hanford WA and Oak Ridge TN, were located next to two of the biggest New Deal Hydro projects (Grand Coulee and the TVA). Along with the Hoover Damn these big hydro projects provided enough electricity for producing atomic materials, while still having enough left over for the aluminum necessary to drown the Axis in planes.Elheru Aran wrote: ↑2019-03-18 02:12pm
The argument could be made that without the revitalization of the American economy provided by the New Deal though, the US would not have responded as effectively and competently to WWII as they did.