68 years ago today, the largest war in history began

[MishaK]

Sarastro,

I think you're too hung up on the human rights issue. That is a postwar concept and in any case played no role whatsoever in any country's entry into WWII. No country fought Germany to save the Jews or the Eastern Europeans. It was all about destroying a nascent new empire that severely undermined the status quo of the world system. England, Russia and the US would all have tolerated a mildly more powerful Germany, perhaps one that occupied half of Poland, annexed Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia, perhaps even more. But Russia was not going to tolerate having its buffer zone invaded, not to mention its territory proper, the UK and the US were not going to tolerate an occupation of France and continued bombing of the UK proper. It had nothing to do with human rights or democracy. Remember that the war allies were themselves at the time colonial powers occupying and suppressing other nations or upholding a system of racial segregation within their borders.

Even after the war, it took a very long time for human rights to play a major role. Really only Somalia, Kosovo and Bosnia could be properly counted as interventions primarily justified for human rights issues (and even then, we all know how well Somalia turned out...). Practically speaking, no country will risk blood and treasure for others alone. They usually need some additional motivation. That's why we will never have a system for redress of human rights violations until there is some kind of standing international force with police authority to intervene, national sovereignty be damned.

An in the US, unfortunately, degrees in sciences (though very valuable) are not encouraged... people think it's hard, but they don't want to be blue collars, so they get diplomas in finance.

No, the really smart people get undergraduate degrees in  science (preferably some kind of engineering) and then go to law school and take the patent bar and become patent or IP lawyers. Those are just about the only people getting jobs in this market right now. ;-)

Could you copy and paste the text? I am not going to sell it...

No, I can't. I have the paper copy, not the electronic subscription. Check your local library for that issue.

[Sarastro]

We both agree, what happened should not have happened, but your seeming shock at inaction needs to be tempered with some more reading about the complexities of the situation.

Well, I already wrote that I can not accuse Churchill and FDR for the Yalta Treaty, just for the complexities there were, but as for last year crisis I don't see any obstacles in boycotting Russia, since it "attacked" the ally and a EU candidate Georgia. We well understand that there even more complexities, such as oil and gas exports that Europe needs. Then why to hypocritically condemn those who violate human rights but do nothing? It seems that the West does not really care about Georgia, though everyone felt this urge to express how a young democracy should not be suffocated.

[knight66]

As Mensch pointed out to you: the world does not run on the principles we would like it to. Though, right now I listen to a daily death toll of British soldiers in Afghanistan, caused in part again by an inability to understand ancient or even recent history. There has is seems been mission creep there. The public here is very unclear why those soldiers are there. My own opinion is that we could have had more effect by using the invasion money on bribing those we wanted to influence. No soldiers would have died.

People do care, but countries cannot really rush about sorting things out, even if occasionally they try. Don't underestimate that gas threat. Billions of Euros are being contemplated in building an alternative pipeline to prevent Russia maintaining its energy stranglehold.

Mike

[Sarastro]

It had nothing to do with human rights or democracy. Remember that the war allies were themselves at the time colonial powers occupying and suppressing other nations or upholding a system of racial segregation within their borders.

That's what I am trying to point out... I remember Florestan (in other threads) picturing the evil Soviets and the fluffy cute liberating West which fought for human rights and liberty. Well I hope they had some kind of spreading liberty in thought, but on the other hand they themselves had many things to be ashamed of. It is just a nice way of running things: picture an evil rival, and be friends against him, brainwashing people that they have to work hard against the common enemy. In some ways it is like religion, where there is the Devil, and you have to live good life and work hard in order to get to Heaven. Just make people believe it. The West pictures evil Russia, the Russians in their turn don't trust the West. Maybe I am being too naive, but I just can't understand why the governments can not stop this rivalry and let it be. For instance, like Canada.

[MishaK]

That's what I am trying to point out... I remember Florestan (in other threads) picturing the evil Soviets and the fluffy cute liberating West which fought for human rights and liberty. Well I hope they had some kind of spreading liberty in thought, but on the other hand they themselves had many things to be ashamed of. It is just a nice way of running things: picture an evil rival, and be friends against him, brainwashing people that they have to work hard against the common enemy. In some ways it is like religion, where there is the Devil, and you have to live good life and work hard in order to get to Heaven. Just make people believe it. The West pictures evil Russia, the Russians in their turn don't trust the West. Maybe I am being too naive, but I just can't understand why the governments can not stop this rivalry and let it be. For instance, like Canada.

Well, that's the point. The whole human rights and good vs. evil rhetoric comes in very handy when troops and civilians need to be mobilized for battle, but it is never the casus belli in and of itself.

Re: stopping the rivalry, sure we can try. The EU is the best effort yet, quite frankly. None of its members will ever go to war with each other as long as the entity exists. It is borne from the realization that the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. Of course, there are always the old nationalists like the Kaczinskis in Poland and other who just don't get it. What the world needs is more regional EU style arrangements. It would bind neighbors closer together in a common cause and create larger, more powerful markets that can resist one-sided exploitation by otherwise larger external powers, which has been the cause of so much resentment and violence.

PS: re: Canada, well that is a really unique case. It's such a small population with so much natural surplus, yet whose survival depended for so long on the benevolence of the US and its former colonial overlords in the UK. Even so, it's hardly always been a fluffy happy place. You may want to read up on Canada's relationship with its indigenous peoples even in recent times.

Re: Georgia, yes there is a Western plan for the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline which is a sore point for the Russians, as it will end their stranglehold on the EU whose natural gas supply they otherwise control almost entirely. Russia is a one trick pony. Its entire political muscle and economic growth in the Putin era is based on Russia's domination of European energy markets and on its oil fields being some of the very few with remaining output growth potential in a world that is otherwise past the peak of global oil production. Take the energy monopoly out of the equation and Russia becomes an unimportant backwater. Russia has long harrassed and tried to control Georgian domestic politics, from mobilizing the Abkhazians and Ossetians against them (never mind that this backfired because it ended up stirring Islamic Caucasian separatism which came to haunt Russia in Chechnya), to assassinating its first elected president and nearly doing so as well to Shevardnadse after he signed the first pipeline deal (and that was despite the fact that Shevardnadse was an old member of the Central Committe under Gorby). It's a sordid old story. I wrote about it at length here. You make a very common mistake in your analysis, however: you assume that because you see one result, that result necessarily must have been someone's objective. You completely discount incompetence. It is not that the Georgians and the US had some rational plan and that the US then abandoned Georgia when things heated up. Saakashvili simply completely miscalculated the situation, was way too aggressive and nearly lost his country over his blunder. Life on the edge require much finer skills in brinkmanship than he displayed.

[Sarastro]

What the world needs is more regional EU style arrangements. It would bind neighbors closer together in a common cause and create larger, more powerful markets that can resist one-sided exploitation by otherwise larger external powers, which has been the cause of so much resentment and violence.

I am sure it's a good idea, however, I don't think it is achievable. Many EU companies like to outsource in other countries, and creating unions with powerful markets is an impediment in exploitation of those countries. Although formally there is no colonization any longer, financial colonization is still around. I read an article, which talked that it is simply not beneficial for the EU or US to help Mexico's free market development. Moreover, many American employers enjoy paying low wages and providing no benefits for their illegal employees, and EU manufacturing gets much cheaper if outsourced to Mexico. For once, capitalist slavery is probably better than other kinds of it.

PS: re: Canada, well that is a really unique case. It's such a small population with so much natural surplus, yet whose survival depended for so long on the benevolence of the US and its former colonial overlords in the UK. Even so, it's hardly always been a fluffy happy place. You may want to read up on Canada's relationship with its indigenous peoples even in recent times.

Well, no country is perfectly fluffy, especially if you take into account crime rates, etc., but what I meant is that it never had any imperial claims, never attacked the imaginary straw man of socialism, although was the only country to become genuinely concerned with the Hungarian uprising.
Another example that comes to my mind is Latin America. Though I know very little about them, it seems that they don't have any major issues, rather than civil wars, with the world or each other. Or, India does not seem to be concerned with Chinese growth, although many people here think of how to contain giant China and that China strives in the pursuit of driving out the US and becoming the only world's superpower. Well, is that true??

Its entire political muscle and economic growth in the Putin era is based on Russia's domination of European energy markets and on its oil fields being some of the very few with remaining output growth potential in a world that is otherwise past the peak of global oil production. Take the energy monopoly out of the equation and Russia becomes an unimportant backwater.

I wonder if Putin and others ever realize what screwed policies they have. Probably, they do, but just don't care. It is unfortunate that most of the Russian export depends on natural resources, whereas the US conserves its oil and imports it from other countries. (Well, no, the US exports its oil to Japan.) I wonder if there will ever be a sane leader who will restructure the system.

Russia has long harrassed and tried to control Georgian domestic politics, from mobilizing the Abkhazians and Ossetians against them (never mind that this backfired because it ended up stirring Islamic Caucasian separatism which came to haunt Russia in Chechnya)

Yes, and the terrorist attack on 9/11 played a role, so that now those wars are said to be "against terrorism". This is quite hypocritical. But now, there is a common "bad guy" Afghanistan to be friends against, so it works out.

It is not that the Georgians and the US had some rational plan and that the US then abandoned Georgia when things heated up.

No, this is not what I believe. However, quite recently I went to a party, where the youth watched conspiracy videos about 9/11 and others and condemned the American government. I just remember this one about Georgia.

[MishaK]

I am sure it's a good idea, however, I don't think it is achievable. Many EU companies like to outsource in other countries, and creating unions with powerful markets is an impediment in exploitation of those countries. Although formally there is no colonization any longer, financial colonization is still around. I read an article, which talked that it is simply not beneficial for the EU or US to help Mexico's free market development. Moreover, many American employers enjoy paying low wages and providing no benefits for their illegal employees, and EU manufacturing gets much cheaper if outsourced to Mexico. For once, capitalist slavery is probably better than other kinds of it.

That is an argument for, not against, regional EU-style arrangements, from the perspective of the relevant nations at least. The reason it is not feasible at the moment is the lack of a critical mass of stable governments in most regions and lots of unfinished business from the cold war era when many of those countries were pitted against each other in proxy wars by the two superpowers. Africa, for example is pretty hopeless at the moment, with Kenya in disarray and even South Africa's political leadership in a bit of crisis. South East Asia is structurally not ready with too many autocratic regimes, in east Asia, South Korea and Japan are the only nominal democracies and they are not too fond of each other because the latter never apologized for colonizing the former. South American in due course may have some potential with many of the economies having stabilized and featuring broadly aligned left-of-center governments. We will see...

Well, no country is perfectly fluffy, especially if you take into account crime rates, etc., but what I meant is that it never had any imperial claims, never attacked the imaginary straw man of socialism, although was the only country to become genuinely concerned with the Hungarian uprising.

...and did absolutely nothing about it. It's easy to wag the moral finger if you have no wherewithal to back up your rhetoric, if you will never be asked to let actions follow your words. The Canadians can hide behind the American nuclear umbrella and pontificate all they want. Fact remains their existence is dependent on the US and UK and they did not intervene anytime their two sponsors didn't.

Another example that comes to my mind is Latin America. Though I know very little about them, it seems that they don't have any major issues, rather than civil wars, with the world or each other. Or, India does not seem to be concerned with Chinese growth, although many people here think of how to contain giant China and that China strives in the pursuit of driving out the US and becoming the only world's superpower. Well, is that true??

No. Central America is still largely a mess (Costa Rica being a notable exception) due to the mess caused by the proxy wars of the Cold War and the ongoing narco business. China and India are very much in competition for regional hegemony among their neighbors. That is also what the whole mess in Myanmar is all about in part. China is currently on a course for unsustainability. Unless it changes its ways, nature will end its superpower ambitions faster than any other powers could.

[Sarastro]

China is currently on a course for unsustainability.

I thought they had the one child policy, which is supposed to cause reduction in population in the mid-century. Besides, some analysts say that with lack of food China will just invade other nations. It has the largest standing army in the world.

[MishaK]

I thought they had the one child policy, which is supposed to cause reduction in population in the mid-century.

That doesn't matter. At current levels of industrial development, there won't be sufficient resources for their industry to keep going and then it is irrelevant if they have the largest army because they won't have fuel for their planes and tanks. They are investing in renewable resources (and are on the verge of possibly eclipsing the West as the largest producer of solar panels), but it remains to be seen how committed they are to that and how effective they will be in curbing their population's appetite for more consumption.

[Sarastro]

That doesn't matter. At current levels of industrial development, there won't be sufficient resources for their industry to keep going and then it is irrelevant if they have the largest army because they won't have fuel for their planes and tanks. They are investing in renewable resources (and are on the verge of possibly eclipsing the West as the largest producer of solar panels), but it remains to be seen how committed they are to that and how effective they will be in curbing their population's appetite for more consumption.

I am quite surprised that you posted this, after the "I feel ashamed in being human" thread. Don't know about you, but I certainly can not see the future. Maybe next year half of China's population will die out from a new disease, like two thirds of Europe died from plague, or something else will happen... I am quite optimistic about China's future, though, -- it is the oldest civilization and has been around for a while.

It is a very profound note, though, that no system can go on forever -- the bubble has to eventually burst. And nothing will last forever.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

assassinating its first elected president

Isn't this just speculation on your part? There are a bunch of theories about Gamsakhurdia's death, including suicide; none have been proven.

Also, he died in a village in Georgia, not in Chechnya as your blogpost states (though he was buried in Chechnya). As to the post itself, it is certainly interesting, and I find points of both agreement and disagreement, but am too lazy to do a detailed critique of it.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I wonder if Putin and others ever realize what screwed policies they have. Probably, they do, but just don't care.

There is ample evidence that they know and care; they just don't know how to fix the situation. Medvedev has decried "legal nihilism" (i.e. the weakness of the country's legal system) and corruption; he gave a speech (which you can find on the Kremlin website) attacking the historic Russian tendency to build up the state at the expense of the individual. Putin has a very clear idea of how Communism screwed up Russia, and a reasonably good idea of how successful modern countries work (this is particularly clear from the collection of interviews with him called First Person). But how to get there from here is a problem they haven't solved, despite some obvious improvements in recent years. It reminds me of the statement by the Polish dissident & editor Adam Michnik, that going from capitalism to socialism was like turning an aquarium into fish soup, and going from socialism to capitalism was like doing the opposite. 

[Florestan]

Oddly enough, my ethics teacher here, in the US, told us that communism would have been the best system ever, had it not been for the human greed and desire to possess.

etc.

etc,

etc.

Although I don't find myself too often in agreement with O Mensch when it comes to politics, this time I have to admit that he corrected your distorted views, and refuted the fantastic claim of your ethics teacher there in the US, in a superb way. I have nothing more to add in this respect.

I remember Florestan (in other threads) picturing the evil Soviets and the fluffy cute liberating West which fought for human rights and liberty.

I'd like to see the proof for this assertion, please.

[Fëanor]

...

The social market economies of Western Europe you describe are really neither here nor there. It would be wrong to label them socialist. In essence, they are non-ideological, pragmatic constructs evolved from decades of political compromises. That is difficult to grasp for the ideologically blind, like JDP or Coopmv, but modern Europe really has nothing to do with socialism. Their current system is merely the latest answer to the question of how to harness the market for the greatest social good. The free market ideologues all fail to grasp that there is by nature no such thing as a completely free market. All markets inherently require regulation, to ensure enforceability of contracts, prevent abuse, sanction uncompetitive and other behaviors that undermine the functioning of the market, etc. Without regulation the market is too volatile and unpredictable and the risks and costs of doing business are too high. The recent crisis illustrates precisely these dangers of an underregulated market: when risks aren't disclosed and disclosure isn't adequately monitored by a regulatory body, when corporate interests are permitted to consolidate to such an extent that they occupy a market dominant position, when lending and borrowing aren't monitored to ensure risk is minimized or at least adequately hedged, then the market risks devastating collapse. You are right that the free marketers are also mistaken to think that the market will self correct. This is untrue. What the un- or underregulated market does is to swing from one extreme to the other. Huge bubbles are followed by huge busts. The problem is that in an underregulated market these 'corrections' may take a generation or more to occur, leaving many people unable to control their economic future. This is neither morally just nor macroeconomically efficient.

Even so, O Mensch.

All so very true.  What appalls me as a Canadian observer of the U.S. situation, is the inability of American voters and polititians to perceive and acknowledge these things.  The fact is that Europe, in general, has been a lot more successful at mitigating the nastier market realities in the interest of the majority of citizens than has the U.S.

How many time during and since the Presidential campaign have I heard some conservative politician there say in effect, "we don't want that do we? It would be copying the Europeans and therefore Un-American"; (with respect to the current healthcare issue there, for example).  Americans, of course, will point out that theirs is the most successful, (not to mention the most free & just, blah-yada), country in the world.  To which I respond the most successul so far, but you are loosing momentum very fast.

[Sarastro]

the fantastic claim of your ethics teacher

If you haven't understood, it was an irony . . . . . . As for the rest, you can read wikipedia on social democracies, and again it was corrected that the term "socialism" is often used incorrectly. It is not about politics, it's about economics.

I'd like to see the proof for this assertion, please.

I don't have the time for the moment, but I'll go back (a year or so) to find your posts on that matter and your bias.

[bwv 1080]

the caveats about regulation and government intervention is that people often fall into a fallacy that government is a disinterested player who can act impartially, when in fact government policies are the result of politicians and bureaucrats acting in their own self interest which may or may not coincide with the interests of the majority of citizens.  The greater the power of government to regulate and micromanage the economy, the greater the rewards to unions and corporate interests to sway the process to get regulations written in a way to benefit themselves.  The funds spent on lobbying and swaying legislators contribute nothing to the national wealth.  The sugar and ethanol industry in the US is the poster child for this.  In the private sector, bad business models do not survive.  However the pork-barrel economics of concentrated benefits vs. diffuse costs are extremely difficult to get around. For example, everyone in the US pays a few dollars more per year for sugar than they would without the tariff, and a few sugar farmers in Florida make millions from it.  The average citizen has no incentive to lobby to change the policy but the beneficiaries of the policy will hire lobbyists, contribute to campaigns, offer lucrative consulting jobs to former gov officials all to preserve their handouts.  Europe and Japan have a corporatist economies, not a socialist ones. 

[Fëanor]

the caveats about regulation and government intervention is that people often fall into a fallacy that government is a disinterested player who can act impartially, when in fact government policies are the result of politicians and bureaucrats acting in their own self interest which may or may not coincide with the interests of the majority of citizens.  The greater the power of government to regulate and micromanage the economy, the greater the rewards to unions and corporate interests to sway the process to get regulations written in a way to benefit themselves.  The funds spent on lobbying and swaying legislators contribute nothing to the national wealth.  The sugar and ethanol industry in the US is the poster child for this.  In the private sector, bad business models do not survive.  However the pork-barrel economics of concentrated benefits vs. diffuse costs are extremely difficult to get around. For example, everyone in the US pays a few dollars more per year for sugar than they would without the tariff, and a few sugar farmers in Florida make millions from it.  The average citizen has no incentive to lobby to change the policy but the beneficiaries of the policy will hire lobbyists, contribute to campaigns, offer lucrative consulting jobs to former gov officials all to preserve their handouts.  Europe and Japan have a corporatist economies, not a socialist ones. 

A good deal of truth there, BWV 1080.  But you assume too much of the private sector and the efficiency of market to week out bad business models.  The whole sub-prime/derivatives market fiasco was a bad business model the endured far too long largely due to deregulation, and when it was finally "weeded out", it took the world economy down with it.

[bwv 1080]

A good deal of truth there, BWV 1080.  But you assume too much of the private sector and the efficiency of market to week out bad business models.  The whole sub-prime/derivatives market fiasco was a bad business model the endured far too long largely due to deregulation, and when it was finally "weeded out", it took the world economy down with it.

well the bad business models got weeded out didn't they?

think about the politics of doing something in, say, 2005 to prevent the panic of 2007-2008.  The remedy would have caused 1) dramatic decline in residential construction, throwing people out of work, 2) the tightening of access to credit for low income home buyers and 3) a falloff in underwriting profits for the banking industry (which had huge influence and lobbying efforts with both the democratic and republican congress).  Can anyone really believe that any government official would take the political fallout from 1-3 over what at that point was only a concern that things were getting out of hand?

and why was a housing bubble across Europe?

[Fëanor]

well the bad business models got weeded out didn't they?

think about the politics of doing something in, say, 2005 to prevent the panic of 2007-2008.  The remedy would have caused 1) dramatic decline in residential construction, throwing people out of work, 2) the tightening of access to credit for low income home buyers and 3) a falloff in underwriting profits for the banking industry (which had huge influence and lobbying efforts with both the democratic and republican congress).  Can anyone really believe that any government official would take the political fallout from 1-3 over what at that point was only a concern that things were getting out of hand?

and why was a housing bubble across Europe?

Here again, your logic per se is impeccable, but ...

Effects (1) and (2) might not have been so drastic as you suggest, especially if remedy had been undertake earlier than 2005.  Meanwhile a effect (3), roll-off of the profits of the banking industry, might not have been such a bad thing, after all it would have forewarned of trouble to come.  The whole evolution of the mortgage derivatives market due to deregulation -- a mistake, as Greenspan admitted -- artificially inflated banking profits while obfiscating the underlying risk associated with the sub-prime mortgage market.

There is not denying the power of corporate lobbies, (especially in the US), but the financial collapse is precisely the consequence of listening to "the market can't be wrong" ideology and doing what the lobbies are paying you to do instead of having active, intelligent regulation.  Canadian and Indian banks, (for example), where vitually unaffected by derivative defaults because regulators in their countries didn't permit these investments.

The underlying problem with the US ecomony is that it has attempted to ignore global realities -- while at the same time, ironically, the global economy attempted to ignore US realities.  The reality is that the globalization and ever scarcer resources undermined the prosperity of the US consumer -- upon the world trade has relied heretofore.  The standard of living of the US consumer, and his purchasing power while real wages declined, were kept afoat by borrowing: a thing that couldn't go on forever.  Sub-prime defaults were only the tip of the iceberg of the grossly over extended US consumer, but they were sufficient to kick off the current crisis.  Incidentally, only a fool would believe that long-term US prosperity can be restore solely by tax cuts and encouraging consumers spending (in reality, consumer borrowing) -- but there are plenty of fools in Congress, or maybe they are less fools than greedy for lobbiest payoffs.

[Florestan]

As for the rest, you can read wikipedia on social democracies, and again it was corrected that the term "socialism" is often used incorrectly. It is not about politics, it's about economics.

If you really believe that the economics of USSR was the same as that of Sweden and Brezhnev was a kind of Olof Palme you're truly delusional.

Besides, you keep extolling Sweden and lambasting US yet you didn't go to Uppsala but to California. Rather strange...

I don't have the time for the moment, but I'll go back (a year or so) to find your posts on that matter and your bias.

By all means, please do. As for my "bias" against anything that has to do with "communism" or "socialism" or whatever you'd like to call the system that ruled East of the Iron Curtain from 1945 to 1989, I never disguised it --- I just call it by the real name: common-sense.