How effective was the New Deal?

[crueldwarf]

BTW, 8 billion or 20 billion or 100 billion is perfectly sustainable amount of population for Earth given some technological developments and economic reogranization.

[FaxModem1]

For this, you have the police.

Not always, unless your argument is that protesters are secretly imperialists.

Now that that silliness is dismissed, can we talk about the New Deal, as opposed to how awful the West is?

[K. A. Pital]

Sure; in the smaller context of getting US capitalism out of a deep crisis, it was effective. In this small context one could also find WWII effective, perhaps much more so than the New Deal as such.

[Elheru Aran]

Sure; in the smaller context of getting US capitalism out of a deep crisis, it was effective. In this small context one could also find WWII effective, perhaps much more so than the New Deal as such.

The argument could be made that without the revitalization of the American economy provided by the New Deal though, the US would not have responded as effectively and competently to WWII as they did.

At least I think it could be made, but not by me right now don't have the time today to get into that. Just a thought that occurred to me.

[Jub]

You started out pressing Broomstick on the issue of 'isms' being the issue and I've noticed that you never actually replied to what she had to say about that. I guess you prefer to score cheap internet points going after me...

I did reply. I asked if Broomstick would be okay with saying Naziism didn't kill people, but people did. The one to which you replied, but Broomstick didn't. Please pay attention to the content of your posts. Also, if you think that "going after you" generates internet points of any value, I think that says more about you and your own vanity than you may realise.

Yeah, that's my bad. Though I think what you replied to Broomstick with is pretty garbage.

I was trying to work out Broomstick's odd rationale by finding out what was at the root of it, through asking varied questions to see if the rationale held out. I find this better than the usual internet arguing of people making statements at each other, because a series of specific questions makes it easier to examine something. It's something I enjoyed doing when I was a teacher. When a student offered an answer which sounded odd, it wound up being more productive to question how they got there, so the issue that caused the questionable final answer could be solved on a fundamental level. Sometimes they were approaching things from a fantastic and interesting perspective, and other times they didn't do the readings and made shit up.

I think you've asked the wrong questions and asked them badly in this case.

Imperialism, capitalism, and entitled shits on the internet. Imperialism wiped out my people (Indigenous Australians) and keeps us as second class citizens in our own lands. Capitalism keeps perpetuating this problem (among others listed by K A Pital in this thread). Entitled shits on the internet are just an irritant, but I like listing things in threes.

So, is it fair to say you dislike modern systems of government and the fact that as individuals it's hard to change anything?

-----

You asked me if we could deal with overconsumption better than capitalists. I have show you that it is possible. A military is necessary for only two things: capitalist, imperialistic conquests - or to prevent from being conquered by other imperialists. The rest of your objection is “I don’t care that the reality of sustainable consumption is that we can have food, shelter, education and literacy, but not obscene exuberant riches, so I want to destroy the world”. Ok, go right ahead.

You've shown me a single small nation with no aspirations of improving their standing in the international community barely surviving. That's not an example you can expect other nations to follow especially given that other communist nations aren't following that lead. Also, do you think that Cuba will maintain this equalibrium in the face of greater international interest and investment?

[Broomstick]

To get back on topic, whether or not the New Deal was effective depends a lot on what you think the ultimate long-term solution should be to the problems posed to the US in the 1930's.

If you feel that social stability, internal peace, and keeping people employed/busy and fed on at least a minimal level until things got better was the end goal then it was successful.

If you feel that adversity makes you stronger and nature should cull the weak and leave the strong to thrive it was a failure.

If you believe that there needs to be a bloody revolution to overturn the social order and bring about a new one then it was likewise a failure.

So... what's your preference?

[Broomstick]

Sure; in the smaller context of getting US capitalism out of a deep crisis, it was effective. In this small context one could also find WWII effective, perhaps much more so than the New Deal as such.

I can agree with this. It was WWII that really revitalized the US economy. However, I would in no way advocate starting a world war to achieve such an economic solution.

[Broomstick]

I did reply. I asked if Broomstick would be okay with saying Naziism didn't kill people, but people did. The one to which you replied, but Broomstick didn't.

That's like asking if math kills people.

No, math doesn't kill people, but it can be used by people to kill other people.

"Nazism" the ideology, sitting in a book or manifesto doesn't kill people. People using that ideology do kill people. Human followers of that ideology are called "Nazis" and Nazi human beings do kill people.

[K. A. Pital]

If you aspire to dominate others, are your aspirations worthy of respect? Dunno. Cuba may not maintain the standards, the jury will be out on thatbut paradoxically it is able to move in the reverse direction to 99% of the world. Consider that this nation has ran a reforestation program which started with 11% forest coverage in 1959 and by 2018, 30% of land is forests. If you want, you can dig into history and find out that even the father of the Green Revolution (sic! - it saved millions of lives, literally!) said it was only a stopgap, and we bought ourselves some time, but had not solved the fundamental issues.

The same, in a particular way, applies to the New Deal. It solved a limited set of issues but not the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, among which there are two, first the endless expansion necessity with no regard for fundamental limits, and next private property on the product of our collective labours.

This is not to belittle the achievements of the time, neither to denigrate them, but to recognize that we need a more comprehensive and honest analysis of the underlying causes of this, and that our survival largely hinges upon this recognition. I hope you all understand this. Criticism of the New Deal is not just in that it has prevented a revolution, but in that it has prevented a revolution without offering a comprehensive solution to the greatest problems of our times, which are at the source of all revolutions. This is a bit deeper and more nuanced than just “well, US workers should have risen up” (even if this is my firm belief, that had we seen more revolutions in advanced nations like the US, Germany etc., we would see a very different reality in our days)...

I also do not actually expect any nations to “follow” a good, but harsh example of sacrifice for the common good of their own accord, not the capitalist ones, at least (too many vested interests which might not be brushed aside neither by democracy nor by even a dictatorial planner), although it would be nice for a change.

[Gandalf]

*snip*

Yeah, that's my bad. Though I think what you replied to Broomstick with is pretty garbage.

*snip*

I think you've asked the wrong questions and asked them badly in this case.

Halfwit says I've done bad things and offers no substantiation. Day continues on.

Imperialism, capitalism, and entitled shits on the internet. Imperialism wiped out my people (Indigenous Australians) and keeps us as second class citizens in our own lands. Capitalism keeps perpetuating this problem (among others listed by K A Pital in this thread). Entitled shits on the internet are just an irritant, but I like listing things in threes.

So, is it fair to say you dislike modern systems of government and the fact that as individuals it's hard to change anything?

I dislike some systems of government, but their modernity isn't their defining trait.

That's like asking if math kills people.

No, math doesn't kill people, but it can be used by people to kill other people.

"Nazism" the ideology, sitting in a book or manifesto doesn't kill people. People using that ideology do kill people. Human followers of that ideology are called "Nazis" and Nazi human beings do kill people.

Your tone on this subject seems inconsistent in this thread, so I'll put it this way; do ideas have agency? By which I mean all ideas, from this thread's ones, to the idea of sabermetrics in baseball. It's certainly way more interesting if you say no.

[Broomstick]

I'm not sure what you're asking there.

Or is it that you wanted a sound bite short answer and you're not happy that I gave a longer one?

[houser2112]

So a nation under heavy embargo but with no real need to build up a military can just barely manage to scrape by, and that's your best example? A nation where you can bring in things like pencils and spare underwear and trade it to the locals as better than cash, a success?

You asked me if we could deal with overconsumption better than capitalists. I have show you that it is possible. A military is necessary for only two things: capitalist, imperialistic conquests - or to prevent from being conquered by other imperialists. The rest of your objection is “I don’t care that the reality of sustainable consumption is that we can have food, shelter, education and literacy, but not obscene exuberant riches, so I want to destroy the world”. Ok, go right ahead.

Only capitalists wage wars of aggression?

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, so as long as capitalism still exists, such wars can also occur. But what is the reason for war between communist nations? Usually it would be a form of nationalism - indicative of a low stage of development of the class consciousness, a prevalence of nationalistic thinking (China-Vietnam war comes to mind).

Eventually, however, the reasons for war are destroyed together with their economic foundations. Much as we do no longer think about wars between individual kingdoms making up Germany, individual provinces of China, the principalities of Russia and such.

In any case, the question was about a nation with „no military“. Undeniably you can configure even a tiny nation to also have a gigantic military - as has North Korea, Israel or Britain, all of which have own nuclear weapons. But is this desireable? It is not, in my view. It is a transitory state of being which owes to the artificial separation of different parts of humankind. And much like feudal fragmentation gave way to consolidation and the nation, so will nations have to give way, some day.

It is at this stage when a military is no longer necessary, except perhaps in a minimal form (ceremonial).

[houser2112]

I don't give a shit about nations with no military, I'm talking about your assertion

A military is necessary for only two things: capitalist, imperialistic conquests - or to prevent from being conquered by other imperialists.

I countered with the Afghan War and the Korean War, examples of communist regimes waging aggressive war, which contradicts this assertion. How can a communist country wage a capitalist war?

Yes, so as long as capitalism still exists, such wars can also occur.

The existence of capitalism somewhere is to blame for all war, even war waged by communist nations? Were the causes of all the wars that predate capitalism retroactively caused by capitalism too? Now, by your statement, clearly you think when the last capitalist country is ground to dust, there will be no war. When the inevitable war occurs, will the cause be "capitalism once existed"? Wow, that takes some impressive mental gymnastics.

But what is the reason for war between communist nations?

The same reasons that all nations go to war: resources, religion, marital infidelity, spite, etc.

[K. A. Pital]

I countered with the Afghan War and the Korean War, examples of communist regimes waging aggressive war, which contradicts this assertion. How can a communist country wage a capitalist war?

How does this contradict my assertion? A military is only necessary to either conquer (imperialism) or protect yourself from being conquered. The fact that some communist states have used the military for other purposes, e.g. intervention as the one in Afghanistan - and you could also bring Vietnam into it, does not relate to the fact that a military is still only necessary for two things.

The existence of capitalism somewhere is to blame for all war, even war waged by communist nations? Were the causes of all the wars that predate capitalism retroactively caused by capitalism too? Now, by your statement, clearly you think when the last capitalist country is ground to dust, there will be no war. When the inevitable war occurs, will the cause be "capitalism once existed"? Wow, that takes some impressive mental gymnastics.

No, you interpret this wrong. Wars that predate capitalism were caused by feudalism (feudal fragmentation), or its late-state conversion to absolutism, because the foundations of these wars were in the feudal society: both in the basis (possession of land as a driving vehicle for the Crusades) and in the superstructure (feudal rule, dynastic wars for control over the lands and serfs). Wars between communism and capitalism are caused by the fact it strives to replace capitalism, much like it once replaced feudalism. It does not mean capitalism is necessarily „to blame“ for such events, anymore than historical movement itself could be blamed.

The same reasons that all nations go to war: resources, religion, marital infidelity, spite, etc.

As communism is aiming to establish a united world civilization, there would be no resource which it does not have, which is inaccessible to it. Also, communism geared towards sustainable development- as in my example- may actually not need excess resources for its system, which removes the foundation of most imperialist wars. Religion under communism is a private matter of individuals and may not become in any way a part of state policy. This is why religious wars under communism are not happening, but they very much do under nationalist (both national-liberal and fascist) rule. Marital infidelities are no longer a cause for war even under capitalism! You must be smart enough to understand both the pretext and the real cause of wars.

Of course, if communist nations start competing with each other, wars can happen, because such a structure is similar to a capitalist market. But it is my conviction that petty nationalism can be overcome eventually, much like feudal loyalties were overcome in the past.

[Tribble]

As communism is aiming to establish a united world civilization, there would be no resource which it does not have, which is inaccessible to it. Also, communism geared towards sustainable development- as in my example- may actually not need excess resources for its system, which removes the foundation of most imperialist wars. Religion under communism is a private matter of individuals and may not become in any way a part of state policy. This is why religious wars under communism are not happening, but they very much do under nationalist (both national-liberal and fascist) rule. Marital infidelities are no longer a cause for war even under capitalism! You must be smart enough to understand both the pretext and the real cause of wars.

Of course, if communist nations start competing with each other, wars can happen, because such a structure is similar to a capitalist market. But it is my conviction that petty nationalism can be overcome eventually, much like feudal loyalties were overcome in the past.

IMO a real key here (roughly speaking) is whether or not a form of natural selection is at play when it comes to political and economic structures. If so then the political and economic systems that are the most competitive will inevitably become the dominant types. Of course, what the most competitive political and economic systems are at a given moment of time is subject to change given the social, economic and environmental pressures etc. of the day.

IMO right now the trend is some form of capitalist dictatorship* being the dominant political and economic system. IMO this may be due to a capitalist system (particularly on the consumer level) being more adaptable than the alternatives, while a dictatorship allows for the kinds of quick and decisive changes on a national scale that democracies tend to be poor at, which is especially critical given the fast-paced 21st century environment we live in.

It's certainly possible that at some point a communist-style world government becomes the most competitive political and economic system, and should that be the case then the world will inevitably trend in that direction. I don't really see it happening in the short-mid term though.

*arguments of whether or not X country already qualifies and by what degree aside.

[LadyTevar]

FFS PEOPLE! You are so far OFF-TOPIC it's pathetic!
Drop the Communism, Stalinism, and WTF-Ism. Drop the 8million current Population tangent, the China tangent, and all other tangents tha'ts made this thread a trainwreck. It has no bearing on the topic, which is "HOW EFFECTIVE WAS THE NEW DEAL?"
Also -- Argue the TOPIC, not the Person.

[FaxModem1]

Okay, to try and keep this thread going, I'm going to repeat what I asked earlier:

Do we have solid numbers on infrastructure built up, services provided, to what extent it helped people, etc?

How does the New Deal compare and contrast with the rapid infrastructure projects of the USSR during their rapid industrialization? In effectiveness, lives lost, environmental damage, etc?

Discuss.

[A-Wing_Slash]

The argument could be made that without the revitalization of the American economy provided by the New Deal though, the US would not have responded as effectively and competently to WWII as they did.

I don't have any statistics to back this up, but it always seemed telling that the two main production centers for the Manhattan Project, Hanford WA and Oak Ridge TN, were located next to two of the biggest New Deal Hydro projects (Grand Coulee and the TVA). Along with the Hoover Damn these big hydro projects provided enough electricity for producing atomic materials, while still having enough left over for the aluminum necessary to drown the Axis in planes.

[Broomstick]

I think it's obvious that the big hydroelectric projects of the era have paid for themselves many times over. That part of it certainly seemed to be effective both from a standpoint of employing people and a return on investment.