Does the Crisis of Capitalism prove Marx was right after all?
Capitalism as an economic system is now used by most of the world; it has suffered crises in the past like the great depression of the early 1930s however the current crisis in capitalism does not prove that Marx was correct as capitalism is still surviving and remains dominant. While Marxism and its socialist/communist offshoots first appeared on the international scene after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, spread across the world and then met its first crisis in the 1980s and consequently crumbled. Hence it is clear that capitalism is a much more resilient economic ideology. Marxism and its calls for “revolutionary struggle” have led to oppressive dictatorships of the proletariat in which, in addition to the lack of economic freedom, political freedom has vanished. The ineptitude of the Marxist economic ideology and the repression of its political form have resulted in many countries flocking to western capitalism and liberal democracy. Contrary to the beliefs of Marx it seems evident to many political economists like Francis Fukuyama and many others that “the universalization of Western liberal democracy” has come “as the final form of human government”.
Both ideologies have polarised economic ideas, on the one hand there is capitalism advocating private ownership as a means of producing wealth, rather than state or public ownership. This economic idea is driven by profit with workers putting in additional labour time for their services leading to a profit for the capitalist. This system works with many levels of capitalists each making a profit from his subordinates, this profit is distributed as interest, rent, taxes, etc with the balance being net profit to each capitalist. This inadvertently leads to an economic pyramid with many levels of capitalists and workers at the bottom. Also with the capitalist system profits and capital are invested in the production, distribution and trade of goods and services, this leads to a feedback loop and with every successful production cycle there is more capital and profit available which leads to the company expanding. Theoretically there is no limit to the company’s expansion but in the past 150 years monopolism has emerged and there has been an increasing number of large businesses. Capitalism is rather utilitarian as it aims to satisfy human wants (luxuries) as well as needs. Capitalism also proposes that every item has a value and this value is subject to supply and demand in the market for example a large supply and small demand will lead to cheaper prices and vice versa; this idea leads to the free market economy. To protect this free market whereby everyone has a private right to property and other forms of ownership, there is the rule of law. In addition to advocating a less stringent regulatory system and encouraging entrepreneurship, Capitalism follows a laissez faire ideology with great amounts of economic freedom however a totally free market economy has not been in practice and all capitalist states utilise some Keynesian economic ideas; this is the mixed capitalist economy we see today.
These ideas result in some distinct economic benefits; these benefits are what
Endear nations to chose capitalism as their economic and political line of thought. Capitalism offers us a robust system fuelled by profit, which encourages private sector competition, which ensures the most adaptive and innovative companies survive in the market and so only the best businesses provide services. As the best companies exist and are constantly competing the market is strong and resilient. The profit accumulated by these companies often leads to fast economic growth and sometimes even economic booms, such as 1920s America. With periods of good economic growth comes further investment in businesses from the domestic market (and as a result of increasing globalisation and free trade), and from multi-national companies based abroad. This additional investment acts as a catalyst for economic growth. And with a strengthening domestic market come strong companies, which may start becoming multi-national companies and join foreign markets leading to even faster growth. The capitalist system is made even more alluring by the fact that there is economic freedom and whoever wishes to start a business can, and is encouraged to do so. One of the chief benefits of Capitalism lies in the good living standards attainable in such a state; as a result of the capitalist system one can become prosperous and enjoy very good living standards, which are unachievable in a Marxist state. Capitalism is fair as it is very meritocratic with only the hard working and successful making large amounts of money and the unsuccessful and less hard working people earning smaller sums. Capitalism has been a key factor in the incredible pace of research and development in the world. This is because capitalism follows utilitarian thought and tries to meet the “wants” of all the people inevitably resulting in innovation.
With Marxist economics we see a parallel picture with a “proletarian revolution” in which the wealth of the nation is much more fairly divided amongst the people and the economy is stringently regulated by the state. With this ideology people are denied the right of private ownership and instead the state and people work collectively producing goods at a rate to ensure prices are low and almost constant for essential goods in the state, with an emphasis on the peoples needs; hence the market is controlled by the state. With this ideology there is no private ownership at all and every means of production (as well as infrastructure) is in the control of the state or shared amongst the people, this is because Marxists believe the state and the people are the only entities that can administer this monopoly fairly. Marxists believe for the same reasons that all debt should be in the hands of the state via a national bank. Marxist thinkers believe that “value” is too subjective in the free market and value should be dictated by human needs rather than wants. Marxism advocates economic equality among the people and aims to give each and every person living in such a society the inalienable right to receive the necessities one requires like education, healthcare, food, water and more. This is why Marxists want workers to be paid for the labour time necessary for a commodities production; Marxists believe all value is created by labour so the labourer should be entitled to the fruits of his work. These commodities produced are sold at a particular value; Marxists want this market value to be equal to the amount paid to the labourer for his labour time. In capitalist states the workers are exploited via surplus hours, which leads to a useful profit, Marxism sees this as unjust and wants to see the workers paid what they rightfully worked for (i.e. the commodities value), hence with Marxism there is no profit, nor a capitalist but the worker earns more money. This economic idea goes hand in hand with Marxist political thinking, which argues that there should be a classless and egalitarian system of governance.
These ideas mean Marxism provides an economic system, which is bereft of the “busts” that cause so much trauma in the capitalist system, instead there is steady economic growth; as a result of it being a planned economy. The planning involved in the Marxist economic state leads to there being a lack of inflation and inflation remains at 0% indefinitely, conversely inflation and deflation have ravaged capitalist economies during “busts” and led to negative economic growth. This is because with the Marxist system the price of human necessities are planned and maintained at a low cost. There are hardly ever price hikes for these goods and when there are price hikes the government responds with wage increases to rectify the inflation back to 0%. This economic idea is clearly evident during the period of the Soviet Union prior to its collapse and also other Marxist/communist states. Whilst capitalist states particularly in the west suffer from unemployment problems due to many not receiving adequate training to go into work, leading to a group in the population being below the poverty line. In Marxist states it is a different story with there being an almost 100% employment rate meaning that everyone earns a living and few live in squalor. The shared living standard among the people within a Marxist state leads to the people being less materialistic which is again yet another benefit.
When one looks at the exhaustive list of benefits capitalism provides it begs one to wonder why capitalism is in crisis today. One of the key reasons for the credit crunch is our reliance on corporate monopolies such as banks. When these great banks or financial institutions collapse a significant economic vacuum is created and no companies are left to fill it, so it becomes the responsibility of the state. Even before the credit crunch this “bailout culture” existed in the US, with Long Term Capital Management being bailed out to the tune of $5 billion in 1998. To make matters worse with de-regulation these economic heavy weights started taking huge risks and rode on the back of economic growth and the housing bubble as illustrated with the example of northern rock and the Lehman Brothers that took huge risks and eventually paid the price. In turn with de-regulation companies can decide whom they lend to and with low interest rates before the crisis, mortgages and loans were offered to people who were sub-prime. And when the credit crunch took hold this was a factor that augmented it and left banks and financial institutions reeling with defaults and a burst housing bubble leading to huge problems. To make matters worse new financial products like securities were introduced shortly before and had not been tested enough for any likely problems. To compound matters there was little regulation of these securities and soon the mortgages of these sub-prime borrowers were being traded on the floors of Wall Street, which sold this “toxic debt” across the world. So it is clear that capitalism does not lead to an inevitable bust but with huge monopolies, de-regulation, sub-prime borrowing, over-confidence and new financial products being instigated without careful thought of how to measure the strength of the product; has all led to an economic crisis across the world all being caused by western capitalist actions.
It is clear that capitalism is a potent force for good if regulated and controlled properly. It may suffer from inflation at times but inflation has its pros and cons and moderate levels of inflation can make a nations exports look attractive to foreign customers. It’s only in these “bust” cycles when you get inflation high enough to cause significant problems and with good regulation “busts” can be avoided entirely
By regulating the economy and preventing such economic bubbles from forming.
Marxism may lead to slow and steady economic growth but well regulated capitalism leads to steady but faster economic growth without the booms and bust. With the capitalist system unemployment is inevitable but with there being a better regulated one formed by many small businesses everyone will share in the prosperity and there will be no contractions in the employment rate as a result of “busts”.
Capitalism encourages privatisation of companies, over the nationalisation and collectivisation of Marxism. With privatisation come some inherent advantages over nationalisation, we see that private firms perform better economically against their nationalised rivals even though nationalised companies are insulated from loss because of state support. This issue is illustrated by the frequent collapse of nationalised assets after being put into a competitive free market; a good example of this would be the collapse of nationalised Soviet assets in the 1990s, following the collapse of communism. Nationalised units are deficient due to state bureaucracy and some cases when the government tries to meet its own political ends. As history has testified corruption can be ripe in the state sector because of its large size this is very visible in the premiership of Leonoid Breznev. The corruption in this sector has lead to the under-pricing of national assets when they were privatised, even looting prior to privatisation by employees and lastly many workers in a nationalised body in a Marxist state have less incentives to work as they know their job will always be there and few are unemployed to replace them whilst those in the private sector have to work hard or risk being sacked. Many Marxists argue that privatisation is too narrow in its distribution of wealth and often deepens the rich poor divide but it must be remembered that the profits from successful businesses tend to be dispersed across the whole of the nation, for example via the stock exchange and sometimes even to welfare through corporation tax. All of this promotes liquidity, job creation and helps society at large. The notion that capitalism in some way shape or form might increase inequality is entirely bogus because with the welfare state (such as Britain’s after World War II) there is social equality in conjunction with economic freedom. So it is crystal clear that the idea of privatisation offers significant advantages over nationalisation and the basis of this statement is categorically supported by historical evidence.
On the contrary to the question proposed it seems like Marxism is the crumbling ideology of late. The swarms of ex-communist and ex-socialist countries turning to capitalism for economic salvation manifests the superiority of the capitalist state. At the zenith of Marxism in the mid 20th century a third of mankind lived in a socialist or communist state but now this number has fallen to just a few states with most of these subscribing to capitalist economic philosophy, this statistic speaks wonders about the feasibility of a Marxist state. Chile is a prime example of how capitalism can change a state’s economic fortunes from an ailing state with socialism failing to an economic miracle brought about by capitalism and leading to robust economic growth that exists to this day. Prior to the ascension of Pinochet and his military Junta in 1973, a socialist president, Allende, ruled Chile using Marxist economic ideas. The period of Allende’s presidency (1970-73) saw a long and tumultuous recession this was because the Chilean welfare state was becoming more and more untenable, Chile was financially unstable during this period and to worsen matters Chile had suffered an earthquake in 1971 of magnitude 7.1 (on Richter scale). To typify the matter Chile suffered from hyperinflation with a rate of inflation of over 150%, which proved to be cataclysmic economically, this was the result of economic mismanagement mainly stemming from ruthless socialist economics such as the governments attempts to set a fixed price on essential goods and a multiple exchange rate. All of these socialist reactions to economic crisis proved futile, troublesome and the Chilean people were short of food and consumer goods and many were driven into poverty. All of this instability was ripe for a military coup and General Pinochet taken over in a military coup on September 11, 1973. Immediately after the coup Pinochet came across a neo-liberal economic document called the “El Ladrillo” which had been prepared earlier in the year by a group of economists that opposed Allende’s government called “the Chicago boys” who were all under the pupilage of the great economist Milton Friedman. Pinochet was so transfixed on this document he presented it to the army staff and modelled the Chilean economy on its neo-liberal economic ideas. With this document in hand Pinochet set to “make Chile not a nation of proletarians, but a nation of entrepreneurs” he did this through various free market and free trade reforms. The first of which was to privatise every industry in Chile, except the copper mines, as the copper mines were an integral natural resource. Chile revolutionised their economy by introducing private pensions, which proved very successful. He opened Chile to free trade and encouraged foreign direct investment into Chile thereby ensuring a competitive free market. Pinochet de-regulated the economic system bringing with it economic freedom and a stock exchange. Pinochet did not always follow neo-liberal economic theory and Chile’s choice of a fixed exchange rate of 39 pesos’ per dollar in June 1979 (in a bid to quell inflation), over the sliding neo-liberal exchange rate proved to be a significant blunder with severe repercussions. This resulted in balance of trade problems, which created an artificial bubble, which finally burst in 1982 adding to the global financial turmoil of that year and leading to a protracted 2-year recession. This period of the “first miracle” (1973-1982) saw a GDP shrink by 5.6% in 1973 followed by a 1% growth in 1974 and in 1975 GDP shrank by 12.9%. When the new free market established itself after fighting off this recession Chile saw strong macro-economic growth from 1976-81 with a maximum GDP growth of 10%. However 1982 was to be a fateful year for Chile for one its great trade partner, the USA was going through a financial crisis with an inflation of 12% and unemployment reaching a ceiling of 10.8% (as of 1982). Even worse the whole of Latin America was in the midst of a debt crisis in the early 1980s, being unable to pay the interests on their loans; by 1983 debt amounted to 50% of the regions GDP and was increasing quickly as a result of high interest rates. This crisis still leaves countries in this area indebted to this day. Chile’s previous indecisions like the fixed exchange rate came into play and caused even more problems. This set of circumstances led to a fall in GDP of 13.6% in 1975 and fall of 2.8% in 1976. The very problem Marxists point out against the Capitalist ideology, inflation, in fact strengthened the Chilean economy and led to a speedy recovery from 1984 onwards. This was largely because the de-valuation of the Peso increased Chilean exports and led to strong economic growth. After Pinochet consequent governments followed free market ideas and Chile has not seen recession in a quarter century. The “second miracle” (1985-89) (with further growth beyond this period) makes even the first look measly; the average GDP growth from 1985-1996 has been 7% therefore by the rule of 72 the Chilean economy has more than doubled in the period, which is a monumentus feat. The miracle did not only lead to economic progression, the socio-economic position of Chileans improved for example infant mortality stood at 82 per 1000 in 1970 and dropped to 19.5 per 1000 by 1985. It must not be forgotten that the population living below the poverty line in the early 1970s was over 50% now this figure is just 13%. Neo-liberal economics has made Chile the wealthiest state in Latin America and a model for economic growth. In this case the free market has well and truly set the people free as the dictator Pinochet relinquished his powers in 1990. The miracle of Chile has set a precedent for other ex-socialist and communist states to logically turn to capitalism and indeed many have taken Chile as a model; take for example Russia, Latin American neighbours, China and all ex communist states in Eastern Europe, which have all seen similarly terrific economic growth.
Politically speaking capitalism offers a society with a class system and a less wide distribution of wealth. However with the growth of capitalism have come offshoots such as the capitalist welfare state whereby some of these popular characteristics of the capitalist state have been sidelined in favour of other ideas. Capitalism varies tremendously politically, on the one hand there is the welfare state and on the other the “laissez faire” and economically liberal state but the economic principles remain the same.
Marxism, however, has a set of political ideas, which seem to vary little among such states. The common characteristics include the belief of equality, freedom, a classless society and common ownership and cooperation between the people. Marxists believe that Marxisms finest form; communism will allow people to enjoy freedom and condition mankind in such a way they would not wish or need to exploit eachother. They believe such a government will create relations between the people that will act cohesively to hold the nation together without significant state involvement. Marx believed that Marxism would come about through a “revolutionary struggle” by the proletariat against its exploiters; he believed that such revolutions were inevitable and the whole world will become Marxist. Marx and Engel’s thought that Marxism would come in gradually first there would be the capitalist state, then the “revolutionary struggle” leading to the “first phase”; this is socialism. In this phase most will be commonly owned and some class differences would exist. This “first phase” would mature into a “second phase”, communism whereby class differences and private ownership would be eradicated in favour of equality and collectivisation/nationalisation.
With the socialism/communism of history and today we see a lot of the aforementioned political ideas. These ideas despite their innocuousness are a façade and beneath it are sinister misgivings, which have been displayed in history for all to see. Take Marx’s ideas of a “revolutionary struggle” it has not led to equality but instead has incited violence and led to long protracted wars like the Chinese civil war which killed over 3.2 million people and also other Marxist insurgencies all over the world. Most Marxist states have forgotten Marx’s ideas of democracy and have turned into authoritarian dictatorships like North Korea. Perhaps the brutal “revolutionary struggles” before the coming of power have a profound effect on the leadership, turning it to dictatorship with a “might is right” approach. This totalitarianism leads to the total annihilation of all political opposition and perceived threats, with Stalin alone victims of direct repression numbered around 8 million, which includes all of his purges and massacre’s. Economically speaking the policies of Marxism coupled with its radical leaders has led to the oppression of its own people one of the most catastrophic being forced collectivisation. Stalin’s collectivisation led to the deaths of 10 million of his own people with 7 million of these being in 1932-33. In a capitalist state such needless, pointless and ruthless suffering would never have occurred and this is proven by the fact that the worst crop failure in tsarist Russia in 1892 killed 400,000 people despite the use of inferior equipment. In addition the equality of wealth and the state monopoly often results in civil servants looting from the state in a bid to get wealthier.
The crisis of capitalism does not prove that Marx was right; it shows that the Capitalist economic system is being run in a less than optimal fashion with monopolisation and too much de-regulation. With a Marxist state such as North Korea there maybe slow and steady economic growth even through the credit crunch, but at what peril? Oppression, no economic or political freedoms and a severe lack of economic amelioration. Capitalism and its utilitarian standpoint has resulted in the people’s needs being met and hence a great deal of innovation has been made possible which would have been otherwise impossible with Marxism and its idea of meeting essentials. Would the light bulb, which has revolutionised the world, be here if Marxism had existed everywhere? Definitely not. Western capitalism has led to many more technological advances then Marxism; take for example the meagre numbers of communist Nobel laureates compared to the hundreds of capitalist laureates. With Marxism we would be held back technologically. In light of this, the economic advantages of capitalism and the radical and often unfeasible policies of Marxism it is evident that Marxism is a largely untenable political and economic philosophy; this is why so many states flock to capitalism and freedom. It seems like Marx was wrong after all; with the unpopularity and infrequent use of Marxism Marx would be deeply aghast by the abysmal failure of Marxism. The question being posed should be how long Marxism will last amid all of this attenuation?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Actual peterhouse cambridge introductory excerpt
Well the first peterhouse cambridge introductory excerpt was quite dull to say the least, well i couldn't post anything i'd actually put in my introduction because the deadline had not passed and by putting my true introduction up it could be plagiarised. Now the deadlines passed i can give you a taster....
" Capitalism as an economic system is now used by most of the world; it has suffered crises in the past like the great depression of the early 1930s however the current crisis in capitalism does not prove that Marx was correct as capitalism is still surviving and remains dominant. While Marxism and its socialist/communist offshoots first appeared on the international scene after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, spread across the world and then met its first crisis in the 1980s and consequently crumbled. Hence it is clear that capitalism is a much more resilient economic ideology. Marxism and its calls for “revolutionary struggle” have led to oppressive dictatorships of the proletariat in which, in addition to the lack of economic freedom, political freedom has vanished. The ineptitude of the Marxist economic ideology and the repression of its political form have resulted in many countries flocking to western capitalism and liberal democracy. Contrary to the beliefs of Marx it seems evident to many political economists like Francis Fukuyama and many others that “the universalization of Western liberal democracy” has come “as the final form of human government”. "
" Capitalism as an economic system is now used by most of the world; it has suffered crises in the past like the great depression of the early 1930s however the current crisis in capitalism does not prove that Marx was correct as capitalism is still surviving and remains dominant. While Marxism and its socialist/communist offshoots first appeared on the international scene after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, spread across the world and then met its first crisis in the 1980s and consequently crumbled. Hence it is clear that capitalism is a much more resilient economic ideology. Marxism and its calls for “revolutionary struggle” have led to oppressive dictatorships of the proletariat in which, in addition to the lack of economic freedom, political freedom has vanished. The ineptitude of the Marxist economic ideology and the repression of its political form have resulted in many countries flocking to western capitalism and liberal democracy. Contrary to the beliefs of Marx it seems evident to many political economists like Francis Fukuyama and many others that “the universalization of Western liberal democracy” has come “as the final form of human government”. "
Friday, February 20, 2009
Long awaited blogging comeback
Hi everyone
Im making my return to blogging so wish me luck and thanks for your patience.
I thought it would be befitting to restart my blogging with a post sharing the same topic as my first post on this blog, that being economic history.
I will try to make a post at least every month on any issue. The next few posts will be less historical and more in line with current affairs, politics and economics, so i hope you enjoy. If there are any comments or ideas please share them. With feedback i have already collated i have realised that smaller posts are more accessible and intriguing for my readership and i will attempt to make my posts more smaller.
Wish me well.
Kind Regards
Im making my return to blogging so wish me luck and thanks for your patience.
I thought it would be befitting to restart my blogging with a post sharing the same topic as my first post on this blog, that being economic history.
I will try to make a post at least every month on any issue. The next few posts will be less historical and more in line with current affairs, politics and economics, so i hope you enjoy. If there are any comments or ideas please share them. With feedback i have already collated i have realised that smaller posts are more accessible and intriguing for my readership and i will attempt to make my posts more smaller.
Wish me well.
Kind Regards
Does the crisis of capitalism prove that marx was right after all? first 150 words.
The catastrophic predicament of Capitalism right now does not prove Marx was right. The crisis of Capitalism just shows mankind that the system of capitalism has not yet been perfected. In fact this current financial crisis owes more to “laissez faire” regulation than to an inevitable “bust”. Capitalism may manifest itself in many “booms and busts” but from every “boom” and every “bust” we learn from our economic misdemeanours. Marxist theory may result in slow and steady economic growth without these often-traumatic recessions, but at what expense? Slow economic growth, lack of economic and sometimes political freedom, measly chances for economic self-advancement, mediocre living standards, forced collectivisation and government corruption. This is the ugly truth of Marxism and its various offshoots.
Both ideologies have polarised economic ideas on the one hand there is capitalism advocating private ownership as a means of producing wealth, rather than state or public ownership. In addition to advocating a less stringent regulatory system and encouraging entrepreneurship.
Both ideologies have polarised economic ideas on the one hand there is capitalism advocating private ownership as a means of producing wealth, rather than state or public ownership. In addition to advocating a less stringent regulatory system and encouraging entrepreneurship.
Monday, March 24, 2008
US millitary takes 4000th Iraq fatality
The US military death toll for Iraq has now hit 4000 today after the death of a further four soldiers in the chaotic city of Baghdad.
All four soldiers were killed when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb in south Baghdad late on Sunday; a US military statement said that another soldier was wounded by the blast.
Bush offered his condolences to the bereaved families saying "I offer our deepest sympathies to their families," vowing "to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain," on what he called a "day of reflection" honouring the US war dead.
The chaotic conflict is now in its sixth year, has killed 4,000 US soldiers and wounded more than 29,000, according to an AFP tally based on independent website www.icasualties.org. Which means it is the bloodiest conflict the US has faced since Vietnam. The US dead includes 102 servicewomen. Of all 4000 fatalities most were inflicted via Roadside bombs and gunfire was the second biggest killer. According to the website, November 2004 was the deadliest month for the American military in Iraq. It lost 137 troops that month when it launched a massive assault to take back the city of Fallujah from insurgents.
The Iraqi civilian death toll is even higher with the most conservative estimates put at 350,000 dead and some estimating one million or more deaths. This war has caused great bloodshed among the Iraqi people most of which caused by US attack, the sectarian strife caused by the power vacuum left after Saddam's regime capitulated and the feeble power of the Iraqi government in administering the ailing nation.
The icasualties.org website is based only on published reports and shows that around 8,000 members of the Iraqi security forces have also been killed since the March 2003 invasion.
At least 97 percent of the deaths occurred after Bush announced the end of "major combat" in Iraq on May 1, 2003 aboard a US aircraft carrier. Bush was definitely caught unawares by the insurgency, the sectarian carnage that brought Iraq on her knees and the high intensity fighting that ensued later. The US military has become caught between a raging anti-US insurgency and sectarian strife unleashed after Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated regime was overthrown. Now the US military is in a more advantageous position with troop numbers being bolstered by the "surge" and Sunni militia now joining the Iraqi security forces furthermore a cease fire with the Shia Mehdi army has reduced US fatalities substantially and so far this year only 96 US soldiers have perished as compared with last years mammoth 901 (again according to AFP).
For Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama the Iraq issue and the ever-increasing death toll is a major issue for the two contenders of the democrat nominee for the US presidential election. Both want to bring US troops home but with the emerging nightmare that is Iraq we might wait some time for stability and the ending of this bitter sectarian bloodshed.
"It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home, and finally pushing Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future," Obama said in a statement on Monday. Clinton also wanted to bring the troops home."I have looked those men and women in the eye. I have made that promise. And I intend to honour it by bringing a responsible end to this war, and bringing our troops home safely," she said.
The deadliest war for the US military, apart from the two world wars, has been Vietnam, with 58,000 soldiers killed between 1964 and 1973, an average of 26 a day. On average just over two US soldiers die in Iraq every day. While the Iraqis lose many many more with an average per day loss of 200 by the most conservative estimates over the 5 years and the higher estimates at 550 a day which is essentially a massacre of collosal proportions.
The icasualties.org statistics show that the deadliest year for the US military in Iraq was 2007 when 901 troops died after the so called "surge" which saw an extra 30,000 soldiers deployed in a bid to end the violence that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, but has indirectly escalated the violence as the data shows.That figure compares with 486 deaths in 2003, the first year of the conflict, 849 in 2004, 846 in 2005 and 822 in 2006. This year so far has resulted in 96 deaths.
American commanders in Iraq acknowledge that putting extra troops on the ground has exposed them to more attacks, but they also claim it has helped curb violence and that attacks have dropped 60 percent since last June.
Over the past year attacks have fallen sharply in Anbar after local Sunni militia’s joined forces with the US military to fight Al-Qaeda.
All four soldiers were killed when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb in south Baghdad late on Sunday; a US military statement said that another soldier was wounded by the blast.
Bush offered his condolences to the bereaved families saying "I offer our deepest sympathies to their families," vowing "to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain," on what he called a "day of reflection" honouring the US war dead.
The chaotic conflict is now in its sixth year, has killed 4,000 US soldiers and wounded more than 29,000, according to an AFP tally based on independent website www.icasualties.org. Which means it is the bloodiest conflict the US has faced since Vietnam. The US dead includes 102 servicewomen. Of all 4000 fatalities most were inflicted via Roadside bombs and gunfire was the second biggest killer. According to the website, November 2004 was the deadliest month for the American military in Iraq. It lost 137 troops that month when it launched a massive assault to take back the city of Fallujah from insurgents.
The Iraqi civilian death toll is even higher with the most conservative estimates put at 350,000 dead and some estimating one million or more deaths. This war has caused great bloodshed among the Iraqi people most of which caused by US attack, the sectarian strife caused by the power vacuum left after Saddam's regime capitulated and the feeble power of the Iraqi government in administering the ailing nation.
The icasualties.org website is based only on published reports and shows that around 8,000 members of the Iraqi security forces have also been killed since the March 2003 invasion.
At least 97 percent of the deaths occurred after Bush announced the end of "major combat" in Iraq on May 1, 2003 aboard a US aircraft carrier. Bush was definitely caught unawares by the insurgency, the sectarian carnage that brought Iraq on her knees and the high intensity fighting that ensued later. The US military has become caught between a raging anti-US insurgency and sectarian strife unleashed after Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated regime was overthrown. Now the US military is in a more advantageous position with troop numbers being bolstered by the "surge" and Sunni militia now joining the Iraqi security forces furthermore a cease fire with the Shia Mehdi army has reduced US fatalities substantially and so far this year only 96 US soldiers have perished as compared with last years mammoth 901 (again according to AFP).
For Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama the Iraq issue and the ever-increasing death toll is a major issue for the two contenders of the democrat nominee for the US presidential election. Both want to bring US troops home but with the emerging nightmare that is Iraq we might wait some time for stability and the ending of this bitter sectarian bloodshed.
"It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home, and finally pushing Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future," Obama said in a statement on Monday. Clinton also wanted to bring the troops home."I have looked those men and women in the eye. I have made that promise. And I intend to honour it by bringing a responsible end to this war, and bringing our troops home safely," she said.
The deadliest war for the US military, apart from the two world wars, has been Vietnam, with 58,000 soldiers killed between 1964 and 1973, an average of 26 a day. On average just over two US soldiers die in Iraq every day. While the Iraqis lose many many more with an average per day loss of 200 by the most conservative estimates over the 5 years and the higher estimates at 550 a day which is essentially a massacre of collosal proportions.
The icasualties.org statistics show that the deadliest year for the US military in Iraq was 2007 when 901 troops died after the so called "surge" which saw an extra 30,000 soldiers deployed in a bid to end the violence that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, but has indirectly escalated the violence as the data shows.That figure compares with 486 deaths in 2003, the first year of the conflict, 849 in 2004, 846 in 2005 and 822 in 2006. This year so far has resulted in 96 deaths.
American commanders in Iraq acknowledge that putting extra troops on the ground has exposed them to more attacks, but they also claim it has helped curb violence and that attacks have dropped 60 percent since last June.
Over the past year attacks have fallen sharply in Anbar after local Sunni militia’s joined forces with the US military to fight Al-Qaeda.
The Schliefen plan
The Schlieffen plan
The Schlieffen plan was an elaborate made by Germany to defeat its regional rival, France if a war broke out. This plan was devised by Germany because there were already tensions between the two colonialist giants (France and Germany) and Germany felt threatened by France.
The plan was first laid down in December 1905 by Count Alfred Von Schliffen. The idea of the Schlieffen plan was to quickly outflank (surround) the French through Belgium with optimum surprise. A major aim of the plan was to take Paris, the capital where the French army communications nerve centre is situated and if this nerve centre is taken the French armed forces would be in disrepute. This is also where the bulk of the French population reside.
The main idea of the Schlieffen plan was to was to quickly overwhelm the weaker northern French army and then to take the port of Calais, a major supply route for the French and where parts of its navy are stationed; and go on to take Paris. The Belgium route of attack was the only viable route of attack that could deal France a knock out blow, as the French possessed many impregnable forts along the Franco-German border and could sustain severe loss of life on an attacking German army. Such an attack would also bog them down thereby losing surprise, which is paramount with the Schliffen plan. Also attacking from the Franco-German border would result in lack of manpower to fight the Russians later on when the Russians have mobilised their massive army. The German planners taken this into account and predicted the Russian cumbersome army would take 6 weeks to mobilise this provided ample time for the Schliffen plan to be orchestrated and France dealt a knock out blow. The Schliffen battle plan after taking Paris would cut the forts around the Franco-German border (in the Alsace/Lorraine region) of supplies. This would result in the forts being easily taken by attacking the weak rear, eradicating this threat. This would be made easier because of the fact that the soldiers in the forts are deprived of rations and ammunition and as the great general Napoleon said “an army marches on its stomach”.
Another principle of the Schliffen plan was to finish off France before the Russian army mobilised and attacked it from the east resulting in the reinforcement of the eastern front at a cost, weakening the strength of the western front. Germany could not sustain a war on two fronts this would just lead to inevitable defeat. The German top brass knew this and exercised the Schliffen plan in the 6 weeks they thought the Russian army would need to mobilise. These 6 weeks would be used to orchestrate the Schliffen plan take France and then re-deploy the rest of the German army to the Russian front. While the Schliffen plan was being executed of the 40 German army divisions (to those not used to military terms a division is between 10,000-20,000 men) 8 divisions were on the Russian front while 32 divisions were on the French front. So large forces were concentrated in one large-scale attack.
In this regard the Schliffen plan is reminiscent to the 6 day war of 1967 if you ask me because forces are highly concentrated for one major attack for example Israel deployed the bulk of their defence forces on the Egyptian front and launched a massive air attack in which 300 EAF (Egyptian air force) aircraft were destroyed on 5 June 1967 during the EAF early morning tea break (08:45 Egyptian time). This concentration of forces dealing a cataclysmic blow soon befell the other Arab nations involved. Back to the Schliffen plan.
When the plan was executed a German southern army was sent to attack the forts, this was a feint by the Germans trying to deceive the French to think the attack was coming from the Franco-German border. This was done to try and lure the French into deploying Reserves there and re-deploying troops from the north to the south so it will be easier for the main German thrust from the north. In the north there was high ground in the Belgium area so once captured it would give Germany an advantage. In northern France however there were fields, flat ground.
Below is a diagram showing the schliffen plan courtesy of school history.
One must remember that the French also had a plan up there sleeve called plan seventeen this involved attacking the Germans along the Franco-German border, where there are French forts. This involved an all out attack on Germany in the Alsace/Lorraine region with soldiers trained to fight “hard and fast”.
As we all read in the history books the Schlieffen plan did not work. It failed for a variety of reasons the resistance of Belgium, the presence of the BEF (as a result of the violation of the 1837 treaty between Britain and Belgium placing Britain as the protector of Belgium, the Kaiser saw this treaty as outdated and thought Britain would not get involved) and its effectiveness in slowing down the Schliffen plan at the battle of the Marne and the battle of la Mons; at La mons German soldiers thought British rifle fire was machine gun fire and also the BEF was called the “contemptible little army” by the Germans, the faster than predicted speed of Russian mobilisation, logistical shortcomings, the changing alliances of central powers Italy and Romania remained neutral, Moltke’s changes to the plan, the 1st German army was east of Paris instead of west of it during the battle of the Marne so the British expeditionary force and the French army were less spread out, and many other factors.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Was Roosevelts new deal successful?
This is a highly controversial question; whether or not the new deal was successful in ending the depression that had bought the USA on her knees. In this essay I will use evidence to show the validity of these claims.
In the 1930s the USA was in a dyer situation the country was stuck in a deep depression. The US economy’s prior prestige had been scuttled with the Wall Street crash of 1929. This capitalist economy held the rich in an advantageous position and the poor in a terrible position when this economy collapsed the poor did not bear the hardship it was the rich. Unemployment and various other effects of depression hit the US hard as a result. The main cause of this depression can be attributed to the Wall Street crash, tariffs on foreign goods, a massive poverty gap, overproduction and speculation and other factors. By 1932 when the abrupt recession of the US economy had levelled off Unemployment stood at over 25 million.
The objectives of Roosevelt’s new deal were alleviating the hardships caused by the great depression, bring unemployment down and to rehabilitate the US economy. Roosevelt also wanted to give women and black people more rights, positive discrimination was even introduced to do so. The new deal changed the model of southern society to some extent, now black farmers were sharecroppers. To mitigate the hardships that caused widespread unemployment and turned “rugged individualism” into “ragged individualism” he introduced alphabet agencies. These alphabet agencies provided jobs to the unemployed and aided the building of roads, power stations, infrastructure, the building of hospitals and schools. The alphabet agencies (so called because of their three letter abbreviations) were a benefit to the US the TVA for example built hydroelectric plants they bought electricity to Tennessee. The PWA built 70% of schools, 35% of hospitals and many warships including 2 aircraft carriers; this targeted skilled unemployment. In 1933, over 5 million were employed by these agencies this bought money to the people. Some jobs were even provided to women and blacks, which were disadvantaged. The idea of these alphabet agencies was to alleviate poverty, reduce unemployment and improve the economy. In 1933 unemployment stood at 20.6 million though four years later unemployment falls to 9.1 million. These unemployment figures show there was a drastic fall in unemployment during the first four years of the new deal (note these figures include those employed by the WPA). The depression had an impact on US politics now the democrats turned more left with regard to policy. More powers were given to the president, in Roosevelt’s inaugurals speech he said he was at war with depression and so he acquired war president powers. On March 9th 1933 he declared a national state of emergency which given him even more power, this state of emergency still exists today. This led to the government being wrongly labelled communist, totalitarians due to the government’s interventionist policies and a dictatorship. One of the pioneers of the pump priming idea Harry Hopkins said “hell they’ve got to eat just like other people” after being accused of boondoggling. This turn to the left manifested in the passing of the social security act in august 1935, which like the pump priming idea given more money to the people and actively financially supported the poor.
To regenerate the US economy the government spent money on these alphabet agencies in the hope more jobs would lead to more spending therefore an increase in demand for goods this will rejuvenate the secondary industry and more jobs will be available here. The democrats called this “pump priming”. The social security act also provided people with more money. The US wanted to provide the people with more money to spend, which would lead to a multiplier effect providing jobs in industry, banking and stabilising the nation. The new deal taken steps to help the US economy for example there were three times less business failures in 1934 than in 1932. After over 4000 banks failed in 1933, almost no banks failed in 1934. Production In the USA in 1937 was twice what it had been in 1932.
On the other hand the new deal was a misadventure, which rather than aid recovery wasted a lot of taxpayers money, farfetched as it sounds tax payers money was squandered paying the unemployed to scare birds and par take in drama. These alphabet agencies did not provide proper jobs instead they provided mainly menial jobs especially the WPA, which held the bulk of workers working for alphabet agencies. Alphabet agencies like the TVA and PWA was fruitful to the US and worth spending the money however most of the money was going to the WPA which employed the most out of all alphabet agencies and was a total and utter waste. The money pumped in was for no avail as most saved the money. It was World War 2 that bought women and blacks more rights as more jobs needed to be replaced, with men going to war. Women proven their use doing less menial jobs, women were encouraged to do these jobs by posters for example “Rosie the riveter”. Black men were taken into the army and replaced jobs left by service men. Roosevelt was totally unable to gain enough support to make any laws to protect black peoples employment rights. Nor was he able to end the Jim Crow laws, which segregated blacks and disallowed them from voting in the south; a basic civil right, which every citizen of any democratic state should have. His encouragement of positive descrimination was not adhered to either. Black farmers were now becoming sharecroppers because the white supremacists of the south saw them as a smaller threat because from 1915 onward bullied blacks migrated north. This is shown by the apparent reduction of lynching of blacks from 1915 onwards. The idea of these alphabet agencies was to alleviate poverty, reduce unemployment and improve the economy yet this was not caused by the alphabet agencies in 1933, 24.9 million were unemployed by 1938 it had fallen to 19 million this is merely the natural recovery of a nation after a recession not the affect of alphabet agencies. In 1939 unemployment stood at 17.2 million this then fell to 1.9 million in 1945 (these figures exclude those working for the WPA as these cant be taken seriously). This shows that World War 2 is what finally consumed the unemployment problem; this manifests itself that a year after the USA declares war all the alphabet agencies are closed because the unemployment problem has ceased. Had the unemployment problem ensued the alphabet agencies would of continued. The US industry and employment was already reincarnated with the advent of the lend lease act signed in March 1941. Had the US not joined World War 2 its unemployment worries would be finished by weapons production for warring Europe. The new deal did alleviate poverty to some extent with the social security act playing a part but nothing in comparison to the poverty World War 2 alleviated. During World War 2 and beyond the GDP of the US rose sharply. The authenticity and validity of unemployment figures including WPA workers are questionable and highly unreliable since some may have even been employed to scare birds. The depression did have an impact on US politics turning it more left, the US government did resort to more socialist policies but that gives no excuse to brand the government as communist. Roosevelt did abuse his 9th March emergency powers using it to bypass congress to pass laws; this directly contradicts his party’s name. Those saying he is dictatorial bear some weight as Hitler used a state of emergency under article 48 of the German constitution to make Germany a one party state. The social security act was successful bringing money effectively to the people.
There were three times less business failures in 1934 than in 1933 because after every recession, be it the 1937 recession or the credit crunch today there is always a recovery afterwards. In 1934 the banks were solvent and only established banks remained that had survived the depression and these banks were not going to fall. After 1932 the US was in recovery so businesses were less likely to fail. Those that argue 4000 banks failed in 1933 and almost none in 1934 should know there is a natural recovery after an economic slump. In addition these remaining banks are established. The fact that an economy naturally recovers after a recession thwarts all the data showing the new deal took steps and improved the economy. The production in 1937 (though it was a recession year) was twice that of 1932 was because the USA was recovering and the 1937 recession was small.
In conclusion the new deal clearly brought some changes for the better in the USA. The objectives of the new deal were to alleviate the hardships caused by the great depression, bring unemployment down and to rehabilitate the US economy. Roosevelt also wanted to give women and black people more rights. All of these objectives were not achieved by Roosevelt; on the contrary they were achieved by World War 2 and this for a man who hated war. The apparent deficiencies of the new deal were glaring Roosevelt in the face this was embodied in the 19 million unemployed in 1938, and that was 5 years after the new deal begun. The new deal was an act of desperation to end bitter years of depression that is unmistakably visible when one looks at the menial jobs offered such as scaring birds.
In the 1930s the USA was in a dyer situation the country was stuck in a deep depression. The US economy’s prior prestige had been scuttled with the Wall Street crash of 1929. This capitalist economy held the rich in an advantageous position and the poor in a terrible position when this economy collapsed the poor did not bear the hardship it was the rich. Unemployment and various other effects of depression hit the US hard as a result. The main cause of this depression can be attributed to the Wall Street crash, tariffs on foreign goods, a massive poverty gap, overproduction and speculation and other factors. By 1932 when the abrupt recession of the US economy had levelled off Unemployment stood at over 25 million.
The objectives of Roosevelt’s new deal were alleviating the hardships caused by the great depression, bring unemployment down and to rehabilitate the US economy. Roosevelt also wanted to give women and black people more rights, positive discrimination was even introduced to do so. The new deal changed the model of southern society to some extent, now black farmers were sharecroppers. To mitigate the hardships that caused widespread unemployment and turned “rugged individualism” into “ragged individualism” he introduced alphabet agencies. These alphabet agencies provided jobs to the unemployed and aided the building of roads, power stations, infrastructure, the building of hospitals and schools. The alphabet agencies (so called because of their three letter abbreviations) were a benefit to the US the TVA for example built hydroelectric plants they bought electricity to Tennessee. The PWA built 70% of schools, 35% of hospitals and many warships including 2 aircraft carriers; this targeted skilled unemployment. In 1933, over 5 million were employed by these agencies this bought money to the people. Some jobs were even provided to women and blacks, which were disadvantaged. The idea of these alphabet agencies was to alleviate poverty, reduce unemployment and improve the economy. In 1933 unemployment stood at 20.6 million though four years later unemployment falls to 9.1 million. These unemployment figures show there was a drastic fall in unemployment during the first four years of the new deal (note these figures include those employed by the WPA). The depression had an impact on US politics now the democrats turned more left with regard to policy. More powers were given to the president, in Roosevelt’s inaugurals speech he said he was at war with depression and so he acquired war president powers. On March 9th 1933 he declared a national state of emergency which given him even more power, this state of emergency still exists today. This led to the government being wrongly labelled communist, totalitarians due to the government’s interventionist policies and a dictatorship. One of the pioneers of the pump priming idea Harry Hopkins said “hell they’ve got to eat just like other people” after being accused of boondoggling. This turn to the left manifested in the passing of the social security act in august 1935, which like the pump priming idea given more money to the people and actively financially supported the poor.
To regenerate the US economy the government spent money on these alphabet agencies in the hope more jobs would lead to more spending therefore an increase in demand for goods this will rejuvenate the secondary industry and more jobs will be available here. The democrats called this “pump priming”. The social security act also provided people with more money. The US wanted to provide the people with more money to spend, which would lead to a multiplier effect providing jobs in industry, banking and stabilising the nation. The new deal taken steps to help the US economy for example there were three times less business failures in 1934 than in 1932. After over 4000 banks failed in 1933, almost no banks failed in 1934. Production In the USA in 1937 was twice what it had been in 1932.
On the other hand the new deal was a misadventure, which rather than aid recovery wasted a lot of taxpayers money, farfetched as it sounds tax payers money was squandered paying the unemployed to scare birds and par take in drama. These alphabet agencies did not provide proper jobs instead they provided mainly menial jobs especially the WPA, which held the bulk of workers working for alphabet agencies. Alphabet agencies like the TVA and PWA was fruitful to the US and worth spending the money however most of the money was going to the WPA which employed the most out of all alphabet agencies and was a total and utter waste. The money pumped in was for no avail as most saved the money. It was World War 2 that bought women and blacks more rights as more jobs needed to be replaced, with men going to war. Women proven their use doing less menial jobs, women were encouraged to do these jobs by posters for example “Rosie the riveter”. Black men were taken into the army and replaced jobs left by service men. Roosevelt was totally unable to gain enough support to make any laws to protect black peoples employment rights. Nor was he able to end the Jim Crow laws, which segregated blacks and disallowed them from voting in the south; a basic civil right, which every citizen of any democratic state should have. His encouragement of positive descrimination was not adhered to either. Black farmers were now becoming sharecroppers because the white supremacists of the south saw them as a smaller threat because from 1915 onward bullied blacks migrated north. This is shown by the apparent reduction of lynching of blacks from 1915 onwards. The idea of these alphabet agencies was to alleviate poverty, reduce unemployment and improve the economy yet this was not caused by the alphabet agencies in 1933, 24.9 million were unemployed by 1938 it had fallen to 19 million this is merely the natural recovery of a nation after a recession not the affect of alphabet agencies. In 1939 unemployment stood at 17.2 million this then fell to 1.9 million in 1945 (these figures exclude those working for the WPA as these cant be taken seriously). This shows that World War 2 is what finally consumed the unemployment problem; this manifests itself that a year after the USA declares war all the alphabet agencies are closed because the unemployment problem has ceased. Had the unemployment problem ensued the alphabet agencies would of continued. The US industry and employment was already reincarnated with the advent of the lend lease act signed in March 1941. Had the US not joined World War 2 its unemployment worries would be finished by weapons production for warring Europe. The new deal did alleviate poverty to some extent with the social security act playing a part but nothing in comparison to the poverty World War 2 alleviated. During World War 2 and beyond the GDP of the US rose sharply. The authenticity and validity of unemployment figures including WPA workers are questionable and highly unreliable since some may have even been employed to scare birds. The depression did have an impact on US politics turning it more left, the US government did resort to more socialist policies but that gives no excuse to brand the government as communist. Roosevelt did abuse his 9th March emergency powers using it to bypass congress to pass laws; this directly contradicts his party’s name. Those saying he is dictatorial bear some weight as Hitler used a state of emergency under article 48 of the German constitution to make Germany a one party state. The social security act was successful bringing money effectively to the people.
There were three times less business failures in 1934 than in 1933 because after every recession, be it the 1937 recession or the credit crunch today there is always a recovery afterwards. In 1934 the banks were solvent and only established banks remained that had survived the depression and these banks were not going to fall. After 1932 the US was in recovery so businesses were less likely to fail. Those that argue 4000 banks failed in 1933 and almost none in 1934 should know there is a natural recovery after an economic slump. In addition these remaining banks are established. The fact that an economy naturally recovers after a recession thwarts all the data showing the new deal took steps and improved the economy. The production in 1937 (though it was a recession year) was twice that of 1932 was because the USA was recovering and the 1937 recession was small.
In conclusion the new deal clearly brought some changes for the better in the USA. The objectives of the new deal were to alleviate the hardships caused by the great depression, bring unemployment down and to rehabilitate the US economy. Roosevelt also wanted to give women and black people more rights. All of these objectives were not achieved by Roosevelt; on the contrary they were achieved by World War 2 and this for a man who hated war. The apparent deficiencies of the new deal were glaring Roosevelt in the face this was embodied in the 19 million unemployed in 1938, and that was 5 years after the new deal begun. The new deal was an act of desperation to end bitter years of depression that is unmistakably visible when one looks at the menial jobs offered such as scaring birds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)