New at Reason

previous link

next link

Print|Email

New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | October 26, 2005

Is spreading democracy the key to perpetual peace, or is commerce the grand panacea? Doug Bandow investigates.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← How Many Dead Iraqis? | Main | Ruled By Geniuses! →

See all 112 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.

|10.26.05 @ 10:07AM|#

Seems obvious enough, even without looking at the data. The interesting test of this theory will be what China and India do in the next couple of decades, though I suppose China can't really be called a market-oriented society, even in the de facto sense.

|10.26.05 @ 10:49AM|#

Is spreading democracy the key to perpetual peace, or is commerce the grand panacea?

Or are those two sides of the same coin? Does pursuing either one make it more likely that the other is able to develop?

I don't think anyone questions the idea that commerce is an extraordinarily influence for peace. But commerce and open, democratic government are synergistic, especially in the long term.

|10.26.05 @ 10:51AM|#

The notion that we can have perpetual peace is problematic.

|10.26.05 @ 10:57AM|#

The democracy vs. commerce argument strikes me as pointless. One may very well be more effective than the other, but both are beneficial, neither is a panacea, and the combination seems to have a lot going for it.

|10.26.05 @ 10:57AM|#

M1EK, you're a liar! :) Sorry, couldn't resist.

Nazi Germany had a fascist economic system. While admittedly less extreme than the economic fascism of Italy and the U.S, the state did dictate who produced how much of what and when.

So it was not economically free. So, if you equate economic freedom with capitalism, Nazi Gemrany was not capitalist.

If you say the two aer not the same, then Nazi Gemany's warlike ambitions do nto in any way argue agaisnt Mr Bandow's thesis.

|10.26.05 @ 11:00AM|#

thoreau,
While I think you're right, both commerce and democracy work together, and both are beneficial, I think the point of the article is that everyone seems to disregard capitalism as a driving force for peace.

|10.26.05 @ 11:01AM|#

M1EK,

The Nazis engaged in massive deficit spending, huge work projects (where do you think the autobahn came from), provided large subsudies to all manner of major industries, increased the size and power of the regulatory state (thus opening up new positions for many new bureaucrats), etc. Of course the Nazis also forbade large sections of their workforce from working in all manner of employment. No, the Nazis were distinctly anti-capitalist.

|10.26.05 @ 11:03AM|#

M1EK,

In what exact ways was it "more capitalist?" Details please. Details.

|10.26.05 @ 11:03AM|#

M1EK-

There's a big distinction between a system that's good for some politically connected companies and a system with features of genuine economic freedom.

A distinction that even some libertarians occasionally have trouble making.

|10.26.05 @ 11:09AM|#

M1EK,

How does Hitler's efforts to centralize agricultural production make Nazi Economics "capitalistic?"

|10.26.05 @ 11:12AM|#

thoreau,

There are a lot of historical myths surrounding the economic policies of Nazi Germany, one of them is that the Nazi's economic policies were highly capitalistic, which the historical record reveals to be absolute crap. Most of what the Nazis did mirrored what was either going on the U.S. under FDR or in some cases what was going on in the Soviet Union. I mean, my goodness the Nazis had Soviet-style Four Year Plans for many aspects of their economic life and the like.

|10.26.05 @ 11:13AM|#

The only meaningful economic distinction between Nazi Germany and the USSR was that the Soviets nationalized everything to carry out their centrally planned economy, while Hitler permitted private companies to carry out his centrally planned economy. In fact, the Nazis had a term, which escapes me, describing how all activity within Germany was to be coordinated to further the Nazi plan.

|10.26.05 @ 11:17AM|#

thoreau,

That's assuming that the trains actually ran on time. :)

|10.26.05 @ 11:22AM|#

ChrisO,

The Nazis were constantly tweaking what "private" companies were making during their reign. Indeed, they kept up high production of consumers goods throughout much of the early part of the war in an effort to keep civilian morale high. This was a choice of the government, not the industries themselves. I guess they didn't want a repeat of the coup d'etat of 1918.

|10.26.05 @ 11:29AM|#

Somehow this thread became exclusively about Nazism (thank you M1EK). Is anyone interested in discussing the article?

fyodor|10.26.05 @ 11:29AM|#

What was Nazi Germany's policy on trade?

I guess the answer should focus on the period before they started invading other countries to be relevant! :-)

fyodor|10.26.05 @ 11:30AM|#

smalls,

We're discussing M1EK's assertion that the example of Nazi Germany disproves the thesis of the article.

|10.26.05 @ 11:32AM|#

fyodor,
I know, but it's annoying to give such credence to M1EK.

|10.26.05 @ 11:33AM|#

smalls,

Well, we had to clear up M1EK's dimwitted comment first.

fyodor,

The Four Year Plan of the Nazis in the 1930s called for economic self-sufficiency. However, that never really happened. The Nazi government depended on imports of foodstuffs to keep the population happy, which meant deficit spending on their part. Their centralized agricultural schemes caused low agricultural productivity, which in turn caused them to buy foodstuffs from other countries, etc. It was a vicious circle that actually harmed their efforts to re-arm.

|10.26.05 @ 11:35AM|#

smalls,

You can always tell you are dealing with a certain class of person when they start making comments like that made by M1EK.

|10.26.05 @ 11:39AM|#

Question:
If Bandow's theory is true, is the US headed for more military conflicts, given its seeming trend toward reduction in economic freedom?

|10.26.05 @ 11:40AM|#

Hakluyt,
Good point. I understand the need to refute M1EK's claims.

|10.26.05 @ 11:41AM|#

Before we discuss the article, I think we need to turn to the diagreable task of unmasking yet another shill for one of the major parties.

So, Mr Bonforte, still spewing your Expansionist rhetoric so your inhuman masters can benefit at the expense of members of your own race?

You, are a traitor, Mr Bonforte, or should I say Larry Smith.

I say Mars for Humans! Down with the Expansionists! :)

|10.26.05 @ 11:43AM|#

smalls,

I'd say (and I am not the only person who thinks this) that the Nazis had two choices in the mid-1930s - adopting market capitalism or warfare. Germany's planned economy was only going to be able to sustain itself on the latter of course.

gaius marius|10.26.05 @ 11:45AM|#

The notion that we can have perpetual peace is problematic.

eactly, gg.

Is spreading democracy the key to perpetual peace, or is commerce the grand panacea?

how about neither?

a better question might be, "what level of self-infatuated hubris must we rise to to ask a question like this?"

|10.26.05 @ 12:09PM|#

Geez, do I win the award for number of typos in a posting, or what? :)

|10.26.05 @ 12:09PM|#

ChrisO-

Sweden and Norway may not have a lot of domestic economic freedom, but how much trade do they have? Bandow's theory seems to be more that vigorous exchange of goods with the outside world leads to less exchange of bullets with thte outside world. The theory may be right or wrong, but that seems to be the argument.

|10.26.05 @ 12:13PM|#

ChrisO,

All my Swedish friends state that the Swedish economy can't keep up with the entitlement burden its set for itself. They're also rather pissed that movies like "Team America" cause near riots in the immigrant communities there.

|10.26.05 @ 12:16PM|#

I hate to yawn at a piece like this, but there's a whole book out on this...Blueprint For Action by Thomas PM Barnett. (along with The Pentagon's New Map, his 1st book)

|10.26.05 @ 12:17PM|#

That does seem to be his main point, doesn't it? He could have been a bit clearer about it.

Essentially, the theory must be that free trade equals interdependency, which prevents societies from being able to make war on each other. I think there's truth in that.

Problem is, history is replete with warlike states that were also active traders--Great Britain, for one, though Bandow would probably characterize it as a mercantilist state. But Britain did import/export outside its colonial system, as well, even at its imperial height.

And such a theory does little to address the sort of intra-state fratricide that characterizes so much of what we call "war" these days.

|10.26.05 @ 12:19PM|#

All my Swedish friends state that the Swedish economy can't keep up with the entitlement burden its set for itself. They're also rather pissed that movies like "Team America" cause near riots in the immigrant communities there.

Ah, but does this mean that they are going to put their horned helmets back on and man the longships??? :)

|10.26.05 @ 12:21PM|#

ChrisO,

No. It meant that they left Sweden for more prosperous shores where they could ply their peaceful scientific skills.

|10.26.05 @ 12:22PM|#

ChrisO,

They didn't have to go off raiding and pillaging because there were prosperous labor markets outside of Sweden where they could find jobs which ameliorated their former sorry condition.

fyodor|10.26.05 @ 12:26PM|#

movies like "Team America" cause near riots in the immigrant communities there.

How so??

|10.26.05 @ 12:29PM|#

fyodor,

I guess they considered it a "racist" smear against Muslims. I can ask one of my friends the specifics in the coming days if you would like.

|10.26.05 @ 12:31PM|#

There is an old adage that many seem to forget. I can't even remember who the original quotation in from.

"When caravans cross borders, armies don't"

drf|10.26.05 @ 12:39PM|#

"In other words, Sweden has a heavily regulated economy, but individual Swedes are still free to start businesses, invest, and work where and how they wish (for the most part"

Gider Du forklare lidt mere?

WTF???? in other words, you're parroting something you've heard about sweden. sheesh.

norway is a poor example - they drew the lucky card in the north sea.

Hak: the gangs in Malmoe is exaggerated.

|10.26.05 @ 12:42PM|#

Hakluyt, I think you are correct about the brain drain.

But somehow the thought of boats full of Viking-helmed computer scientists prowling the Baltic in search of job opportunities is a very appealing one... :)

|10.26.05 @ 12:42PM|#

drf,

One of the things that Swedes seem to complain about the most (when you get them in a candid mood - Swedes as a rule seem to keep their opinions to themselves) is the crime there and how it relates to their rather wacko immigration policies.

|10.26.05 @ 12:45PM|#

The quote "When goods cross borders, armies don't." has been attributed to Frederic Bastiat.

|10.26.05 @ 12:45PM|#

drf:

WTF???? in other words, you're parroting something you've heard about sweden. sheesh.

Not really. I recognize that Sweden is hardly a laissez-faire paradise, but Swedes do invest, start businesses and choose their own employment, do they not? Admittedly, with fewer options than other less-regulated economies.

drf|10.26.05 @ 12:53PM|#

Hak -

i've spoken with swedes in candid moods when they think they're just with scandinavians. they thought i was danish - other filters were up. you know my relationship with scandinavia. you don't need to try to explain stuff like that.

that anecdote is through the "foreign filter" that i experienced in spades. You'd hear different complaints and different laments if they thought germans or americans, etc. were in the audience or if just swedes or among scandinavians.

ChrisO:

yes you were. you cannot tell the difference in day-to-day things. I lived in equally regulated denmark for five years.

|10.26.05 @ 1:03PM|#

Bandow has an incredible grasp of the obvious. Democracy is simply tyranny by the majority. Capitalism is the only politico/economic system in which individual liberty is the paramount goal. Plus, how many times does it have to said that the U.S. is a republic not a democracy. It's suppossed to be a capitalist republic at that. Capitalist countires don't go to war because it's bad for business to kill your customers.

|10.26.05 @ 1:04PM|#

M1EK|10.26.05 @ 1:09PM|#

Hey smalls,

Kiss my ass.

|10.26.05 @ 1:20PM|#

China and Taiwan are the contemporary test-bed for this. Will the forces of nationalism or trade triumph in China? Can Taiwan walk the current tight-rope long enough to the point where China couldn't possibly consider using force because the economic costs would be too staggering? Or are we already at that point?

I think we may already be at that point. China's bluster and provocation don't seem to be resulting in much action anymore, and their government has to understand that starting a war with Taiwan would be very bad for business. Especially considering the fact that China's prosperity is fragile and extremely export-dependent on the one country that is most likely to come to Taiwan's aid.

I would be worried if China's economy runs into trouble, however.

|10.26.05 @ 1:22PM|#

yes you were. you cannot tell the difference in day-to-day things. I lived in equally regulated denmark for five years.

The difference with what? I'm unclear on what you mean.

|10.26.05 @ 1:32PM|#

M1EK,

We did read. There was nothing capitalist about Nazi economics. You fail to grasp that some of us (like myself) actually know what we are talking about.

Just to clue you in on the "means of production" issue, the Nazis had many state owned industries. State ownership of industries is something that the E.U. (and its former incarnations) has been walking away from for decades. Liberals have all these myths and fantasies about the economics of modern day Europe as well as about the Nazis.

Let's watch M1EK's commentary morph over time:

By some standards...

Again, by some peoples' standards...

...BY SOME OF THE COMMON QUALIFIERS...

|10.26.05 @ 1:33PM|#

M1EK,

More to point, to claim that the Nazis were more capitalistic in any way than modern Europe is a serious misreading of Nazi economics; indeed, it connotes flat out ignorance of Nazi economics.

|10.26.05 @ 1:36PM|#

M1EK,

But hey, comparing Nazi economics to capitalism is exactly the sort of dimwitted stuff we expect from garden variety, poorly read liberals like yourself.

fyodor|10.26.05 @ 1:43PM|#

Hakluyt,

That was my best guess, so I guess I do understand, but I'd be curious to know more! Feel free to contact me off-thread if you like! Thanks!

M1EK,

By the descriptions given here, I would say it would seem that Nazi Germany was much less capitalistic than today's Western Europe, which actually has a fairly capitalistic system albeit with great regulation and taxation for its welfare systems. I don't believe most of today's Western European nations have the type of strong central planning and economic involvement folks here have attributed to Nazi Germany. Now, please feel free to explain why they're wrong and why you think Nazi Germany was more capitalistic and free market oriented than today's Western Europe, but please stop beating the dead horse that no one here understands you. They understand what you said and have said why they think you're wrong. Please respond in kind.

|10.26.05 @ 1:45PM|#

That's assuming that the trains actually ran on time. :)

The (state-run) trains DO run on time in Germany - in fact they're rather famous for that.

gaius marius|10.26.05 @ 1:46PM|#

Capitalist countires don't go to war because it's bad for business to kill your customers.

the naivite of this position -- and of bastiat as well, in saying "When goods cross borders, armies don't" -- is astounding.

does anyone here actually think that anyone goes to war on rational grounds?

perhaps this goes to the root of the freemarketer's fundamental misreading of human nature. i'd submit to you (mr thoreau, more reading!) norman angell's "the great illusion". it wasn't in the interest of ANY of the great european powers to pursue war in 1910 -- and yet they all did to the extent of all but neutering western society. in whose economic interest was that?

|10.26.05 @ 1:46PM|#

M1EK,

BTW, if there was any truth to your argument, given your nature you would have provided us with about a half-dozen examples as a means to evidence your remarks. What we've gotten is a "means of production" remark which seriously misunderstands the level of state ownership of business in Nazi Germany. One need look no further than the control the Nazis exercised over the banking industry to see how this worked - the Nazi government owned the majority of German banks and made bankers mere well-heeled bureaucrats in the process. So much for your "means of production" argument.

|10.26.05 @ 1:53PM|#

fyodor,

We're going to see either silence or a lot of bluster and obfuscation from M1EK on these matters. Well, we've already seem some of the latter already.

|10.26.05 @ 1:59PM|#

Rob Halford,

I thought you were only hanging around to make a Judas Priest related comment the other day? Nice to see you're still with us!

|10.26.05 @ 2:17PM|#

fyodor,

Here comes the bluster. I told you so.

M1EK,

Ahh yes, argument from popularity - how wonderful. The point would be of course whether any of their analyses make any sense. They don't of course, for the very reasons I've detailed here. The Nazis weren't capitalists, nor were they in any way more capitalists than modern day Europeans. Like I wrote, if you indeed did have the goods on us here, given your nature you'd have provided us about a half-dozen examples by now. So far you've tossed out "means of production," which I summarily debunked for the clap-trap that it is.

|10.26.05 @ 2:17PM|#

If the world is a giant clusterfuck, and is hopelessly anti-capitalist and anti-democracy, what's wrong with Imperialism?

Either the Mid-East is capable of democracy, and we can help this with military and political force, or it's not, and we should be running it, for our own benefit.

The same applies to Europe and South America, for that matter. I am reminded of a Simpsons quote, "Worst. Imperialists. Ever."

|10.26.05 @ 2:18PM|#

M1EK-

I think I got your point. I just think that there's a big difference between capitalism in the free-market sense of the word (not whatever corrupted meaning others might assign to it), and a system that happens to benefit some large and politically-connected companies.

|10.26.05 @ 2:19PM|#

M1EK,

In detail, give us a half-dozen examples of how Nazi Germany is more capitalistic than current day Europe.

|10.26.05 @ 2:20PM|#

Rhywun-

Alas, I must leave you all, as I have just received word that there is a town somewhere that is in desperate need of some hard rockin'. Back on the bus, boys!

|10.26.05 @ 2:23PM|#

thoreau,

...and a system that happens to benefit some large and politically-connected companies.

Most of which are owned by the state either outright or via stock purchases.

|10.26.05 @ 2:29PM|#

You can go ahead and debunk one of the "Hitler Capitalism" searches by looking at this site:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Especially embarresing for M1EK is the site directly below, which states that Hitler was against capitalism:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/nazi/adolf-hitler/

Of course, it is rather strange that our dimwitted friend would use search terms like "Hitler Capitalism," since Nazism, a brand of fascism, is the issue at hand, and Hitler neither invented fascism, nor was he the sole or even primary source of thought on Nazism or Nazi economics.

|10.26.05 @ 2:37PM|#

Pro Libertate,

I'd say that its heated because claiming that Nazi Germany was capitalistic (which is at the heart of M1EK's ignorant reading of the historical record) is offensive to capitalists. Poorly thought out liberal propaganda has been trying to smear capitalism with the taint of Nazism for a long time now, and this is just M1EK's version of that.

|10.26.05 @ 2:42PM|#

Pro Libertate,

Of course that's not the only area where liberals try to smear capitalists; look at joe's antics re: the poor a week or so ago. We had to prove our "bone fides" re: the poor, otherwise we are just heartless bastards out to exploit people.

|10.26.05 @ 2:43PM|#

Pro Libertate-

My own take is that when the body count has 7 or 8 digits the regime obviously doesn't fit into any normal political categories. The Nazis were not simply one side or the other on steroids. They were a completely different beast. They may have had some superficial similarities to one side or the other on various matters, but that doesn't mean much. And their handful of remaining adherents seem to have certain preferences as far as right and left go, but I assume that when a neo-Nazi picks sides in contemporary politics, he's picking the "lesser good".

We libertarians lament having to pick a "lesser evil" instead of a REAL good guy. Do neo-Nazis say how they wish that they could vote for a REAL bad guy instead of one of those "lesser goods"?

|10.26.05 @ 2:48PM|#

Come to think of it, the remaining Communist parties in Europe probably have similar complaints. "Man, remember back in the good old days when you could back a candidate who was truly evil? Now all we have is these sort-of-good people. Whatever happened to the real tyrants?"

|10.26.05 @ 2:51PM|#

thoreau,

My own take is that when the body count has 7 or 8 digits the regime obviously doesn't fit into any normal political categories.

Sure they do. Its one or another variety of state-centered or mandated collectivism that enjoys some measure of popular support. Of course the details of each state may differ, but each has its community ethical standard which is based on some fairly rigid formulas for who is and is not a valued member of the community (Germans v. Jews, workers v. business owners, kulaks v. non-property owning rural population. etc.). Each also tends to lead to heavy-handed government intervention and control of the economy, and outright ownership of all or most of the "big industries." The economics of these regimes are justified at least in part because they are meant to reinforce the ethical system which the community is all about.

|10.26.05 @ 2:56PM|#

thoreau,

A lot of communists from those formerly communist nations probably pine for a time when the social order (and this moral order) reflected what they believed. And they didn't likely see that as evil, even though we do.

Most people fail to understand that the Nazis and the Communists had their own vision of a proper moral order, and that they were often idealistic in enforcing it. If you read the speeches of Hitler and other high Nazi officials the point about encouraging idealized notions of the heimat, "the community" would be a good way to translate that term, is found throughout their remarks - and its obvious that they and their audiences believed in that crap (interestingly enough they rarely discussed Jews or any other disfavored group openly in these speeches).

|10.26.05 @ 2:58PM|#

All of this Hitler crap seems to miss the point of the article, except that if the question is posed as "Would Nazi Germany have been peaceful had it been a free-market economy?" And the obvious answer is that "Nazi Germany could never have been a free-market economy."

|10.26.05 @ 2:59PM|#

Pro Libertate,

Well, there is no way to "win" the debate with folks like M1EK. They are far too wedded to their ignorant views of capitalism.

|10.26.05 @ 3:03PM|#

ChrisO,

Well, and still be a fascist state. As I wrote long ago above, the Nazis had two options (oddly enough some of Hitler's advisors told him this in the mid-1930s) - return to a market-driven economy or go to war to finance and further the Nazi social and economic system. Hitler and his henchmen chose the latter. Hitler was more than aware of the differences between a capitalist state and a Nazi state and how overwhelimingly alien one was compared to the other.

|10.26.05 @ 3:07PM|#

Hey, if we could eliminate being controlled by all of the busybodies who want to tell us how to act, think, spend our money, etc., we'd be halfway there. Sure, we need government to stop people who want to be "free" to directly harm others, but that requires far less government than what we have today. Or what Russia and Germany had at their respective nadirs, either.

Larry A|10.26.05 @ 3:12PM|#

Consider human nature. Which would you depend on for votes against war?

The philosophy that war is a Bad Thing, and even though those Canucks don't act like us or talk like us or have the same attitude toward government, and heaven knows they say nasty things about us all the time, and they keep coming down to use our hospitals; still, they are Human Beings and we should treasure their Cultural Diversity and not go to war with them because it's the Right Thing To Do.
The fact that if you blow up the Ontario office the profit margin will crater.

|10.26.05 @ 3:14PM|#

Politial freedom has to matter because if there is no common interest between the guy who directs the tanks and the guy who owns the grocery, it is very hard to argue that the presence or absence of war is somehow a reflection of the wants of the guy who owns the store.

From this perspective, the missing relevant variable is the extent to which generals answer to popular interests.

|10.26.05 @ 3:21PM|#

Jason Ligon,

Well, popular interest may want war of course. For example, the Nazis invaded the Rhineland in an effort to boost sagging public confidence and disenchantment with Nazi economic policies.

|10.26.05 @ 3:23PM|#

Hak:

I wasn't arguing that such a connection would prevent war, I was making the much weaker assertion that if the generals aren't answerable to commerce interest via the political system, it is hard to argue that commerce can save the day.

|10.26.05 @ 3:24PM|#

I have some good news: The Nazis were most certainly NOT libertarian.

And there was much rejoicing.

(P.S. The LP should run on the platform that they are least like the Nazis. Lots of comparisons of the Democratic and Republican nominees to Hitler to follow. Yippee!).

M1EK|10.26.05 @ 3:38PM|#

Pro Libertate,

I agree with your characterization of the Nazis - but keep in mind that there ARE those who call them capitalist; and it's unquestionably true that the Germans who called THEMSELVES capitalists originally allied with the Nazis because they thought the Nazis were the lesser evil (vis-a-vis Communism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis

see "Ideological Competition"

I have found in the past that off-the-deep-enders tend to get really really vehement that the Nazis weren't at all capitalist because it makes them look bad if they can't put them and Stalin in the same exact bucket.

M1EK|10.26.05 @ 3:42PM|#

hakluyt, again, since you continue to pretend like we're having a conversation: I have no interest in conversing with you in any way, shape, or form. You're a kook. Grow up.

|10.26.05 @ 3:52PM|#

Well, and still be a fascist state. As I wrote long ago above, the Nazis had two options (oddly enough some of Hitler's advisors told him this in the mid-1930s) - return to a market-driven economy or go to war to finance and further the Nazi social and economic system. Hitler and his henchmen chose the latter.

He couldn't have chosen otherwise and stay in power. Hitler 'put the country back to work' by spending down the country's reserves to build a war machine--obviously none of it was making any money. Continued economic misery would have meant a quick exit for der Schicklgruber.

In any event, regardless of what his advisors told him, Hitler's plan from his days in the beer halls of Munich was to rearm Germany and go to war. There never was any "Plan B."

|10.26.05 @ 3:52PM|#

M1EK,

I'd rather be a kook than an intellectual coward such as yourself. Besides, eviscerating your fallacious arguments is fun and allows me to show you up here for the fool that you are. After all, everyone here making a comment on your statements is agreeing with me, and not you. Such fun. :)

|10.26.05 @ 3:55PM|#

I agree with your characterization of the Nazis - but keep in mind that there ARE those who call them capitalist; and it's unquestionably true that the Germans who called THEMSELVES capitalists originally allied with the Nazis because they thought the Nazis were the lesser evil (vis-a-vis Communism).

OK. But saying that the Nazis were closer to capitalism than Communism is not the same as saying that they were closer to capitalism than Western Europe of today. Western Europe of today is much, much closer to "ideal" capitalism than Communism ever was. You have yet to make the case that Nazism was even closer still.

|10.26.05 @ 4:00PM|#

M1EK,

BTW, if not for me, then for everyone else here, give us six examples of how Nazi economics were capitalistic or more capitalistic than modern day Europe. Hell, give us three. Tell us about three areas of Nazi economics - in theory or in practice - that are capitalistic. Hell, one would think that simply for the sake of keeping your argument alive and to make yourself not look like the laughingstock that you are you'd give us three examples.

Of course you won't be able to honor this request for one simple reason: you are ignorant of the entire era, ideology, etc., and its quite clear that you are ignorant because of everything you've written on the matter. You are out of depth, out of your field, and working through bluster and vague references to keep the wolves at bay.

|10.26.05 @ 4:02PM|#

thoreau,

You'd think he'd be able to give us one example - of theory or practice - where Nazi economics resembles capitalism so as to compare to the current economic patterns of Europe. M1EK's refusal to do so should tell you something about his original claim (which he has now modified).

|10.26.05 @ 4:09PM|#

thoreau,

Anyway, M1EK thinks that ignoring me means that I have to ignore his stupidity. :) That should give you a clue as to the sort of critter we're dealing with.

|10.26.05 @ 4:45PM|#

Hak:

Has something changed in your diet recently? You seem to have the commenter equivalent of 'roid rage these days ...

|10.26.05 @ 4:54PM|#

Jason Ligon,

Heh. I thought I was being exceedingly civil. (Of course I am being sarcastic.)

|10.26.05 @ 5:57PM|#

Fascism, on the contrary, cemented into power the old ruling classes.

On this particular point, I disagree with Rothbard. In fact, in both Italy and Germany, fascism represented an overthrow and/or co-optation of the traditional ruling classes by revolutionaries primarily of a middle-class background.

In Germany, the old Prussian Junkers thought they could harness "the Austrian Corporal" into a return old-style aristocratic rule, but Hitler played them for fools and ultimately eliminated, politically or otherwise, many of the aristocrats who had backed him in '33. In fact, in revering the "Volk," the Nazis clearly distanced themselves from the notion of aristocratic rule--he held himself out as the ideal German everyman.

In Italy, from what I know, the situation was similar, though Mussolini was able to more effectively co-opt the existing Italian state to his own ends--he did not even end the monarchy. But clearly, he and his henchmen were not of "the right sort," and his relationship with the Church was always strained, I believe.

While fascism may have "frozen a set of monopoly privileges upon society," it was not the old privilege, or the old monopoly. In that sense, fascism was truly a revolutionary, not reactionary, movement.

|10.26.05 @ 6:01PM|#

World War II was not a conflict between fascism and something else, as advertised, but a conflict between competing brands of fascism.

I'm no fan of FDR, but wow, that's some pretty extreme shit right there...

|10.26.05 @ 6:18PM|#

Fascists, or, more generally, dictators labeled as "right" rather than "left", may very well ride some popular sentiment into power and upset some old elites. Nonetheless, I think it's safe to say that fascists seem more willing to work with some private businesses. This begs the question of how "private" those businesses are once wedded to the state, but the fact remains that fascists generally seem to be more willing to leave in place some semblance (however cosmetic it might be) of private enterprise. Granted, those private enterprises exist only at the sufferance of the dictator, and they exist alongside outright state-run enterprises, but they exist nonetheless.

What does that mean? I dunno. Maybe dictators labeled as "right" are just wise enough to realize that coexistence with (select) sympathetic industrialists will help keep their system afloat better. (Not quite as many starving people, better weaponry manufacturing, more efficient construction crews to erect opulent palaces, etc.) While dictators labeled as "left" don't figure that out.

Or maybe it's just that the different flavors of dictators have different ideological fixations, and hence allocate their evil energies differently. So while some dictators are busy trying to eradicate businessmen, others will tolerate the existence of some friendly businessmen while they devote their energy to eradicating a particular ethnic/religious group or invading neighbors or whatever.

(And then there are the "Renaissance Man of Steel" dictators like Stalin, who manage to do all of those awful things with equally horrific results on every front.)

What's the point of all of this? I dunno. Dictators come in many different flavors, and for some reason people love to insist that contemporary politicians resemble one flavor or another. Never mind that none of America's current leaders can boast 8 digit body counts.

|10.26.05 @ 6:29PM|#

|10.26.05 @ 7:08PM|#

ChrisO, thank-you for offering your historical knowledge in such a polite way, and without remarking on how little I know.

|10.26.05 @ 7:41PM|#

thoreau,

You poor thing. :)

ChrisO,

I've always found it rather humorous how the Prussians who got their country into WWI went apeshit when the Russians were about take down Prussian areas of Germany in WWI (Hindenberg and Ludendorf would eventually save the day). They thought the Russians too backward and uncivilized for them to mobilize as fast as they did. Of course the Prussians were prone to over-planning their military campaigns and thus they lacked sufficient elasticity of mind to get out of the rut they'd put themselves into - thus their retreat in 1914 was inevitable once they hadn't met their four week time-table to take out France.

|10.27.05 @ 1:37AM|#

It looks like Rummel might have to watch his other flank. His democratizing argument is being challenged elsewhere. This thesis maintains that emerging democracies are more prone to be belligerent.

|10.27.05 @ 5:23AM|#

I'll try to post on-thread here. From the article,

the correlation between economic liberty and peace is 50 times as great as that between democracy and peace.

And what was the correlation? The difference between .005 and .025 is irrelevant.

S. Richardson,

There is an old adage that many seem to forget. I can't even remember who the original quotation in from.

"When caravans cross borders, armies don't"

If you ask enough Chinese people, you can find an adage that says anything you'd like to hear.

Fact: many, many more caravans traveled across the Eurasian Steppes when the Mongol armies kept the area under control, than when they didn't (Middle Ages). In most older times, there was much more trade around the Mediterrainian when there were big strong navies (Roman, Muslim).

Fact: pirates, bandits, and corruption take over when there is not a strong, central government power.

Strong, central government powers are inevitably the aftermath of wars of conquest.

Rob,

China and Taiwan are the contemporary test-bed for this.

I have many friends from Taiwan. Their deterrent tactic has been to arrange their defenses, such that if the mainland invades there will be literally nothing of value left in Taiwan.

justin,

Bandow has an incredible grasp of the obvious. Democracy is simply tyranny by the majority.

Agreed.

Capitalism is the only politico/economic system in which individual liberty is the paramount goal.

Only if you can get inside the operating band. There's a sweet spot out there, if you will. To illustrate what can happen when you get outside it, the big American financiers of the late 19th century did NOT want a true capitalist system. JP Morgan, for example. Why? Because, it was way too hard to predict profits.....

True capitalism is an extremely difficult system to maintain over the long haul. There are so many forces that will act to undermine it.

gauis,

does anyone here actually think that anyone goes to war on rational grounds?

Yes, I do actually think there can be rational grounds for going to war. I can even imagine rational grounds for being the one who starts a war.

There are in fact parts of the world which would probably not be civilized even today, if they had not been conquered by someone in the past and integrated into an empire.

These parts of the world probably include -- oh, say, the entire planet. The foundation of every great civilization is a grave yard.

But you know, I'm just a barbarian.

|10.27.05 @ 5:33AM|#

There is a way to promote a tendency towards pacifism, and that is urbanization. Urbanized peoples are far less likely to be war like.

Why I don't know. I just know from reading history books that this has been true of China.

China began showing strong signs of pacifism under the neo-Confucists, correlating roughly with Europe's Middle Ages (1200-1300 AD). It was at this time that China was becoming seriously urbanized.

It was, not coincidentally, at this same time that the first barbarian hordes took possession of the emporer's throne in China. The Mongols were vastly outnumbered by the Chinese, but the Chinese were simply unwilling to fight.

The Manchus repeated this trick about 400 years later.

High density urbanization will do more to stave off warlike tendencies than anything else I've seen, from my reading of history.

The Republicans historically have been seen as more "war like" than the Democrats, right? And the Democratic states have traditionally been those with huge city populations. This means, the east and west coasts.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Maybe this theory about urbanization isn't perfect. Hak can maybe find holes in it. But I buy this theory much sooner than the "capitalism will bring us peace" theory.

|10.27.05 @ 5:53AM|#

This thesis maintains that emerging democracies are more prone to be belligerent.

I'd buy that.

Emerging powers, democratic or otherwise, are (if they're actually growing) prone to have a strong belief in themselves, and their way of life. They believe their way is better than anybody else's.

This attitude can be found in the roots of every people in history that went out and built an empire.

Civilizations have always been carved out by a peculiar sort of arrogance.

We may frown on this arrogance today, from where we sit. But without empire builders, the civilized order we've inhereted would not exist. For this reason I have aquired a certain respect for that peculiar arrogance.

It is for this reason that people call me a barbarian. :) So be it.

The Romans were warriors, but look at all the other things they made possible. The concept of what the Roman Empire accomplished has haunted Europeans ever since. Similar things can be said about Chinese civilization.

|10.27.05 @ 7:47AM|#

Kahn-

The Romans seemed to fight a lot of wars.

|10.27.05 @ 8:59AM|#

"Maybe this theory about urbanization isn't perfect. Hak can maybe find holes in it. But I buy this theory much sooner than the "capitalism will bring us peace" theory"

Or maybe urbanization is just more evidence of capitalism bringing peace. You can't urbanize without the division of labor and specialization - two inherent results of free (or relatively free) markets.

And the reason why urbanization leads to more peaceable people can be viewed through this same lens - as the division of labor increases, and specialization increases, people are more interdependent to maintain their standard of living.

|10.27.05 @ 11:11AM|#

M1EK,

BTW, by claiming that the Nazis didn't have a welfare state as part of Nazi economics you've (for obvious reasons) taken yourself out of this debate. It illustrates a level of ignorance that should lead anyone to discount anything you say further on the matter.

drf|10.27.05 @ 11:38AM|#

Hak:

and that is new.... :)

|10.27.05 @ 1:05PM|#

quasbill,

You can't urbanize without the division of labor and specialization - two inherent results of free (or relatively free) markets.

Good point!

thoreau,

The Romans seemed to fight a lot of wars.

It was their favorite pass time. At least until th end days, when their own people wouldn't fight anymore (much more comfortable to stay at home in the cities) and they had to basically start using mercenaries.

|10.27.05 @ 1:30PM|#

I haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone brought up the fact that the Nazi's were capitalists, and also started a war of conquest? Seems like it shoots this whole argument to hell.

Also, Genghis Kahn once bought some Yak butter. QED.

|10.27.05 @ 1:50PM|#

Hakluyt:

Of course the Prussians were prone to over-planning their military campaigns and thus they lacked sufficient elasticity of mind to get out of the rut they'd put themselves into - thus their retreat in 1914 was inevitable once they hadn't met their four week time-table to take out France.

A bit late on this reply, but oh well. You are right about this. The German High Command based too much of their plan around what had worked in the Franco-Prussian War, not knowing that technology had made their plans obsolete.

The pre-WWI High Command was notoriously technophobic, and I don't think they fully appreciated the technological changes that had occurred between 1871 and 1914. In fact, Manchester, in his biography of the Krupps that I mentioned before, indicated that the Prussian/German generals were still advocating the use of brass cannon as late as the 1880s-90s, even though the introduction of Krupp long-range steel cannon had been an important factor in the Prussian victory in 1870. It took Krupp DECADES to sell the Prussian leaders on steel cannon, despite the obvious advantages, merely because of a few test failures in the 1840s-50s, which were rectified by better steel refining processes within a few years.

I find an interesting parallel, though, between the Schlieffen Plan and the Maginot Line, don't you? In each case, the generals were fighting the last war. God only knows what kind of obsolete plans are stashed away in the Pentagon for future use...

|10.27.05 @ 2:35PM|#

I haven't read the whole thread,

(Which will shortly become screamingly obvious.) :)

but has anyone brought up the fact that the Nazi's were capitalists, and also started a war of conquest? Seems like it shoots this whole argument to hell.

This has already been brought up, and the contention that Nazis were capitalists, which therefore shoots this whole argument to hell, has been shot to hell. :)

|10.27.05 @ 2:44PM|#

Stevo, dang. What of Genghis Kahn and his Yak butter, smart guy?

|10.27.05 @ 7:52PM|#

Genghis Kahn didn't buy things. He took them. You clearly don't know him very well.

Buttered yak tastes better than dry yak every time.

Oh, sorry, wrong kind of butter.

|10.27.05 @ 10:21PM|#

My opinion on this whole thing:

I think the crucial ingredient is a free market that includes minimal regulation of foreign trade. And a relatively weak government that taxes little. Under this circumstance, the people getting rich will recognize that war is bad for trade. And people don't get rich from making war on their customers. And therefore they will be less likely to support a war. And the government is less able to coerce their support.

The bad news is: Has there ever actually been a country where all these circumstances apply? I can't think of any.

Someone mentioned Great Britain, which prospered on trade but made war anyway. Although they also allowed that GB didn't have free trade, it had heavily regulated trade and mercantilist policies. Under those circumstances, people won't want to go to war against their customers, but they'll happily send the state to war against their competitors.

If the government is strong and able to levy heavy taxes, democratic or not, then you have a situation where the people with the power to decide to go to war aren't necessarily the ones who will have to pay for it, in taxes or consequences. In a democracy, the relatively few rich traders are more likely to be outvoted and fleeced ... unless they are able to buy influence in the government, in which case you end up with mercantilist pro-war policies.

Most of the modern countries I can think of today are either too unproductive to do much international trading, or else have relatively strong governments, heavy taxes or relatively mercantilist (nationalist) trade policies. So war looks pretty likely.

Hm, I'm usually not this pessimistic about this.

PS: Ghengis Khan avoided butter. He liked his yak lightly coated with extra virgin olive oil, then grilled over Mongolian mesquite.

|10.28.05 @ 12:29AM|#

Hitler was definitly a capitalist. His prgram was simple, and he laid it out several times. He said, "Whatever the communists are for, we are against. Whatever they are against, we are for". The only industry the state had total control over was the miliraty industrial complex. The cigarette companies, coal companies and such they didn't own.
Fascism is exactly hat Trotsky said it was, a product of capitalism, or a reaction of capitalism. When the capitalists can no longer do what they want to in a peaceful way. Goering promised the German capitalist class "100 years of labor peace". They broke up unions, and crushed the working class to prove to the capitalist class they had what it takes.

Fascism could easily happen again.

Anton Batey

|10.28.05 @ 1:32AM|#

Stevo,

Go have yourself a lightly oiled yak and a beer. Don't sweat it.

|10.28.05 @ 4:58AM|#

What percetage of this thread got burned up on Hitler's economics?

Anyway, gold isn't the only reason people fight wars. Hitler is at least one example.