Help with my Debate on Great Depression

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Basically, this neo-conservative is arguing that FDR's 'socialist' policies were not only ineffective, but actually pro-longed the depression and caused the recession of 1937.

Now, I realize FDR is hardly considered a socialist in these parts, but the debate is more about Ultra-Free-Market v "European style socialism." Here's an article about how Obama is going down the same path that the poster brought up in the OP, but it's by Dick Morris (http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-obama-presidency--here-comes-socialism-2009-01-20.html) and I'm sure you all could care less.

Now, all of a sudden, I'm in this debate with a neocon on the Depression.

-From the Leftist perspective, Why did the Great Depression happen, specifically why was it greater than all other recessions (or do you agree with Keynes)?
-Does anyone know of any charts showing the increase of economic output in socialist countries during the depression (USSR/Germany) compared to the more laissez-faire nations, especially the US, which I could use on a forum?

Any other info or arguments I might have overlooked would be greatly appreciated. I want to mop the floor with this guy :)

[Demogorgon]

Compare what happened in America to what happened in Britain (that stuck with traditional Laissez-Faire) with America (and Roosevelt's policies) and you have your answer.

And did you just call Germany Socialist to irritate people?

[Revolutionary Youth]

And did you just call Germany Socialist to irritate people?
I thought East Germany used to be one?

[Demogorgon]

I thought East Germany used to be one?
There was no East Germany in the thirties. But another rather well known regime ruled all of Germany for most of the period.

[Revolutionary Youth]

There was no East Germany in the thirties. But another rather well known regime ruled all of Germany for most of the period.

Oh yeah, East Germany was born in 1949.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Compare what happened in America to what happened in Britain (that stuck with traditional Laissez-Faire) with America (and Roosevelt's policies) and you have your answer.

Thank you.


And did you just call Germany Socialist to irritate people?

Well, no. I consider them socialists, just fascists not Marxists.

[Demogorgon]

Well, no. I consider them socialists, just fascists not Marxists.
What socialist policies did they have? They were extremely pro-business.

[Chapter 24]

What socialist policies did they have? They were extremely pro-business.

Yes, but in the long run fascists were against laissez-faire capitalism. Of course nationalization of features of the economy doesn't equate to socialism, but there are people out there who like to think it does. What people don't begin to realize is that fascism totally disregards any concept of class-conflict and instead embrace the idea of class-collaboration by eliminating the supposed "decadence" of the people within the nation.
As a side note, the Canadian film The Corporation (I've never watched the enitre thing although I've heard it has a liberal tint to it)made a section of the film dedicated to investment into Nazi Germany and these businesses links to the Nazi war machine and the Holocaust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ-ZD98YZW0

[Kassad]

Oh boy. The right-wing, laissez-faire types. They fail to realize that the enterprise system is the root cause of recessions and depressions. Frankly, President Roosevelt's policies had little influence on anything, since there was going to be a destruction of abundance regardless.

The conservatives who present this argument think that leaving the market alone will solve the problems, so they are totally content with the loss of millions of jobs and further concentrating money in the hands of the elite. Roosevelt was a reformer, but his programs have created a social safety net which is and was totally necessary to preventing an even more grievous depression. The market types would have rather seen Roosevelt leave the market alone, let millions lose jobs and potentially die, just so the market would be restored about ten years later. It's a grand story of lost jobs, lost life and the concentration of wealth.

[danyboy27]

Yes, but in the long run fascists were against laissez-faire capitalism. Of course nationalization of features of the economy doesn't equate to socialism, but there are people out there who like to thing it does. What people don't begin to realize is that fascism totally disregards any concept of class-conflict and instead embrace the idea of class-collaboration by eliminating the supposed "decadence" of the people within the nation.

interresting, what do you mean by class collaboration?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

What socialist policies did they have? They were extremely pro-business.

Well, they felt it was the duty of the government to shape the future of Germany in every sense. They were elected in a time of great unemployment, poverty, and hopelessness in order to create work and a return to prosperity. I highly doubt anyone voted for them to see a right wing response.

Anyway, while they were pro-business, I would hardly call them extreme. They undertook land redistribution programs from the Junkers, something the social democrats had lacked the balls to do when in power during the Weimar Republic. Also, they created Labor Brigades to undertake massive projects and used the state to rebuild the economy. When debating a neo-con, all this qualifies as being socialist, and compared to FDR they were moreso.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Oh boy. The right-wing, laissez-faire types.

Tell me about. The rest of your point is good, just that the dude I'm debating seriously believes FDR did what he did to enslave the country.

so yeah...

[Demogorgon]

Well, they felt it was the duty of the government to shape the future of Germany in every sense. They were elected in a time of great unemployment, poverty, and hopelessness in order to create work and a return to prosperity. I highly doubt anyone voted for them to see a right wing response.

Anyway, while they were pro-business, I would hardly call them extreme. They undertook land redistribution programs from the Junkers, something the social democrats had lacked the balls to do when in power during the Weimar Republic. Also, they created Labor Brigades to undertake massive projects and used the state to rebuild the economy. When debating a neo-con, all this qualifies as being socialist, and compared to FDR they were moreso.
None of those policies are socialist though. Everybody knew they were a party of the right before they came to power-including in economics. They were led to believe that right wing solutions needed it. And just to make sure everybody knew where they stood economically, they allowed Von Krosigk to remain finance minister. And kept him right up until he became Chancellor with Goebbels' suicide. Not the actions of a Socialist Government.

The truth is that plenty of countries were pursuing such policies to try and combat the depression. The highly aristocratic Government of Japan was also attempting similar. Are we going to call them Socialists too? I understand that in America a very strange definition of the word Socialist has formed in order to make sure the word retains entirely negative connotations (hence the massive giveaway to the financial sector ridiculously being referred to as socialism) but you can't let people beg the question like that. If you concede that the Nazis were socialist simply by following Keynesian stimulus policies then it will naturally follow that you are a socialist for also following them and next thing you know your opponent will be able to lump you in with the Nazis. It is a cheap and dirty debating tactic, but one all too easy to walk right into.

Incidentally Keynes himself was no Socialist. He was a brilliant economist and his observations were often impeccable, hence he came up with some pretty good policy suggestions, but if you look at his politics in general, he was no leftist.

[Demogorgon]

Tell me about. The rest of your point is good, just that the dude I'm debating seriously believes FDR did what he did to enslave the country.

so yeah...Sometimes you just have to give up with these sot of people. The level of paranoia present in them makes it an awful lot like arguing with a schizophrenic over their delusions.

[mykittyhasaboner]

-Does anyone know of any charts showing the increase of economic output in socialist countries during the depression (USSR/Germany) compared to the more laissez-faire nations, especially the US, which I could use on a forum?

I wish I knew of a chart showing the statistics; but basically the CCCP was undergoing economic revolution, obviously.

Here's "The Results of the First five-Year Plan" by Stalin.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1933/01/07.htm

Edit: You could also argue that the collectivization in Catalonia during the 30's improved their economy.
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_catalonia_dolgoff.html
http://www.dam-iwa.org.uk/pamphlets/1992/anarchist-economics.htm

[danyboy27]

I wish I knew of a chart showing the statistics; but basically the CCCP was undergoing economic revolution, obviously.

Here's "The Results of the First five-Year Plan" by Stalin.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1933/01/07.htm

i dont really trust that, chances are that 90% of that stuff where changed so it would fit for stalin objectives and views on the subject.
Telling the truth was not necessarly a good thing back then.

[Chapter 24]

interresting, what do you mean by class collaboration?

Class collaboration is the antithesis of class conflict, that is, the opposite. Unlike communists, who wish to eliminate classes from society, fascists believe that the hierarchy of the class system is both a natural and positive part of it, and that a class collaboration in a nation was necessary for its stability and economic benefit.

[danyboy27]

Class collaboration is the antithesis of class conflict, that is, the opposite. Unlike communists, who wish to eliminate classes from society, fascists believe that the hierarchy of the class system is both a natural and positive part of it, and that a class collaboration in a nation was necessary for its stability and economic benefit.

so basicly, if i believe that i am a fascist, despite i disapprove authoritarism, racism, totalitarism and militarism?????

i am getting confused

[Chapter 24]

so basicly, if i believe that i am a fascist, despite i disapprove authoritarism, racism, totalitarism and militarism?????

i am getting confused

Well, no. Class collaboration is one part of fascism, not the whole ideology. There have been nationalist movements seperate from fascism in the past, even though fascism is inherently nationalist. There are certain aspects to fascism which make it fascism, but one characteristic itself doesn't define fascism - it's irritating when all you read in the history books is that fascism is "nationalism, militarism, and totalitarianism". It disgregards the economic character of fascism that sets it apart from other movements. It disregards the proponents of fascism (i.e., petit-bourgeoisie, middle and upper classes, the church, certain bureaucrats) and thus fails to explain who and what made fascism, fascism.
As for your question about you being a fascist, I would say no. Fascists claim that inequality is necessary, whereas modern-day social democrats wish to reform capitalism as much as possible without actually having a revolution.

[danyboy27]

Well, no. Class collaboration is one part of fascism, not the whole ideology. There have been nationalist movements seperate from fascism in the past, even though fascism is inherently nationalist. There are certain aspects to fascism which make it fascism, but one characteristic itself doesn't combine fascism - which is irritating when all you read in the history books is that fascism is "nationalism, militarism, and totalitarianism". It disgregards the economic character of fascism that sets it apart from other movements. It disregards the proponents of fascism (i.e., petit-bourgeoisie, middle and upper classes, the church, certain bureaucrats) and thus fails to explain who and what made fascism, fascism.
As for your question about you being a fascist, I would say no. Fascists claim that inequality is necessary, whereas modern-day social democrats wish to reform capitalism as much as possible without actually having a revolution.

ho okay tanks.

[mykittyhasaboner]

i dont really trust that, chances are that 90% of that stuff where changed so it would fit for stalin objectives and views on the subject.
Telling the truth was not necessarly a good thing back then.

OK, then do you have any statistics to prove other wise? Or are you just wasting my time with your baseless assertions?

[danyboy27]

OK, then do you have any statistics to prove other wise? Or are you just wasting my time with your baseless assertions?

is it a baseless assertion to say that the stalinist regimes tend to manipulate information so it fit their own views on a particular situation?

[mykittyhasaboner]

is it a baseless assertion to say that the stalinist regimes tend to manipulate information so it fit their own views on a particular situation?
Yes it is, because you provide no evidence to support your idiotic claims. Its especially baseless (and quite naive) if your trying to deny industrial growth of the Soviet Union, while the rest of the world was toiling in the Great Depression.

[danyboy27]

Yes it is, because you provide no evidence to support your idiotic claims. Its especially baseless (and quite naive) if your trying to deny industrial growth of the Soviet Union, while the rest of the world was toiling in the Great Depression.

then again, i dont say the soviet union didnt got any growth during the great depression, on the countrary, what i am just trying to say is that
data provided by stalin and his close advisor is not something i would trust. those document dont even mention of the verry important role of peoples doing forced labor to build dam, bridges and roads.

actually, i think ww2 is a good proof that the 5 year plans had positive effect on the country, basicly beccause they showed they have been able to outproduce one of the industrial powerhouse of europe, germany.

and this was not baseless, its well known that the soviet publications during stalin was heavily controlled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_historiography

[MMIKEYJ]

Basically, this neo-conservative is arguing that FDR's 'socialist' policies were not only ineffective, but actually pro-longed the depression and caused the recession of 1937.

Now, I realize FDR is hardly considered a socialist in these parts, but the debate is more about Ultra-Free-Market v "European style socialism." Here's an article about how Obama is going down the same path that the poster brought up in the OP, but it's by and I'm sure you all could care less.

Now, all of a sudden, I'm in this debate with a neocon on the Depression.

-From the Leftist perspective, Why did the Great Depression happen, specifically why was it greater than all other recessions (or do you agree with Keynes)?
-Does anyone know of any charts showing the increase of economic output in socialist countries during the depression (USSR/Germany) compared to the more laissez-faire nations, especially the US, which I could use on a forum?

Any other info or arguments I might have overlooked would be greatly appreciated. I want to mop the floor with this guy :)
YOu sure the guy is a neo-con?? Because he's right.. and I dont ever usually agree with any neo-cons... Might he be an old school conservative?

[IcarusAngel]

If you're going to state your case, state your case with facts and evidence.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you concede that the Nazis were socialist simply by following Keynesian stimulus policies then it will naturally follow that you are a socialist for also following them and next thing you know your opponent will be able to lump you in with the Nazis. It is a cheap and dirty debating tactic, but one all too easy to walk right into.

You should track the material in this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-vs-communism-t98455/index.html

And also this Yahoo discussion:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/deleonism-list/message/533

"Socialism" is too much of a catch-all term, and there is a reason why both Marx, Engels, and the revolutionary social-democrats didn't like that term, at least before the latter bunch were the main "socialist" tendency).

[IcarusAngel]

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth

[IcarusAngel]

Capitalists Are Right, Never Help the Worker
http://www.debianhelp.org/node/13119

[trivas7]

Class collaboration is the antithesis of class conflict, that is, the opposite.
Um, no; the opposite of class conflict is the elimination of classes, classless society.

[MrPatchouli]

Class collaboration is one part of fascism, not the whole ideology. There have been nationalist movements seperate from fascism in the past, even though fascism is inherently nationalist. There are certain aspects to fascism which make it fascism, but one characteristic itself doesn't define fascism - it's irritating when all you read in the history books is that fascism is "nationalism, militarism, and totalitarianism". It disgregards the economic character of fascism that sets it apart from other movements. It disregards the proponents of fascism (i.e., petit-bourgeoisie, middle and upper classes, the church, certain bureaucrats) and thus fails to explain who and what made fascism, fascism.


Much of capitalist and middle class/petit bourgeoisie support for fascism came from seeing it as a lesser evil than communism. They would have preferred a more traditional bourgeois conservative party. Much of its populist economic agenda appeals primarily to the working classes, and one sees that in the base of support for modern manifestations i.e., the BNP. It's arguable that it's primarily class that distinguishes them from say Ukip, where the racist middle class vote goes.