Is Deliberately Starving Millions of the Populace to death A Good Thing

Kohoutek

That's right, he liked to sometimes walk around bare-chested but he wasn't that athletic himself! A bit like Hitler's idolisation of the Aryan race - he was a bit too dark haired to be an Aryan himself!

Generali

carolt wrote: »

I don't think Hitler's supposed avowal of environmentalism need lead us to rule it out on those grounds alone.

I read/heard a few years back that the organic movement also came out of the facist movement. I buy organic eggs because they taste nicer to me.

harryhound

Can I go back a bit further in history?

The French Revolution probably worried Britain's ruling elite more that the Russian communist revolutions - both revolutionary states degenerated from radicalism to dictatorship.

The French slogan to this day is Liberty Equality & Fraternity and it is the balance between these three against which a society should be judged.

Personally I would stress Liberty as the most important of the three.

Like JC responded when accused by the religious police of failing to comply with the niggling laws: "The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath".

Do you feel free, do you feel that the state is working for you or are you working for the state?
I feel my freedom is being eroded, and I am dreaming of the days when officials signed their letters "your obedient servant".

I am finding it difficult to think of a society where Liberty Equality and Fraternity is increasing and where government officials realise they are privileged to be servants of the people who pay their wages..

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

True, and its a difficult balance. There must have been some real feeling initially at the very least, leading to the rise of Hitler. He spoke sense amid the nonsense too. Its far harder, I think to acknowledge that a wicked person said some things that were not wicked that than it is to dismiss everything as the ramblings of deranged evil.

i think the problem with our view of hitler lies in our tendency to fetishize and individualize everything - the 'cult of personality'. whilst hitler was the 'leader' he was only able to carry things out because he was part of a wider movement. anti-semitic feeling was by now way unique to hitler at the time. nor were his expansionist inclinations or eugenic philosophy. as an individual i'm sure hitler had a 'nice' side. it was only as part of a movement that his evil side had power.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

I read/heard a few years back that the organic movement also came out of the facist movement. I buy organic eggs because they taste nicer to me.

can you really taste the difference though?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargains-and-rip-offs/article.html?in_article_id=500980&in_page_id=5

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's amazing how we call our economic system 'capitalist', yet I think we're pretty far from the original conception of capitalism and free markets.

If we were really capitalist, the market would set interest rates, not a central bank. We would let failed companies and financial institutions go bankrupt, not bail them out, and creditors/bondholders/shareholders of failed companies would lose everything. We wouldn't have an enormous government that spends 50% of our GDP, and millions of families that depend on state entitlement programmes.

I think a lot of problems stem from the fact we're not capitalist enough - too many people work for or depend on the government, we have banks where shareholders do not exert enough pressure to limit ridiculous salaries and bonuses, and these institutions operate on the assumption if they fail, they will be bailed out. If bank accounts had no deposit protection, people would not invest in dodgy institutions like Northern Rock or Icelandic banks in the first place.

and maybe the problems with failed communist societies is they weren't communist enough?

you see capitalism is all very well in theory but it's just not workable in practice because it goes against human nature. compassion means that many struggle to allow the weakest to truly suffer or fail. also selfishness means that those with vested interests won't allow all failing business to fail, or markets to be truly free. so nice in theory but it's just not workable.

vivatifosi

ninky you really should read up on the works of Sen. I think you would like his work and he would give you a framework on which to build and develop your views that is more workable.

When I studied economics I chose to do a term of development economics and it is truly a depressing subject. There are all kinds of variables that hit under-developed countries, from inequalities of health, unstable armies, fragile eco-systems, uneducated workforces... the list goes on. Even if a country had truly egalitarian outlook and all of its people were treated the same, if that meant that they all earned $1.50 per day instead of some earning $1.00 and a lucky few earning $6.00, that country would still be poor and disadvantaged compared to the rest of the world - while I repeat - communism cannot work because those in power will always be more equal than others.

This is why I think the fair trade movement and the work of some grass-roots NGOs is so important. We also need a strong UN to keep countries honest. It is right that people get enough money for their cash crops than, not only do they have enough to eat, but also to educate their children as study after study show that education is the key to breaking free of poverty. Communism is not a way of breaking free from poverty. If a country changed its political allegiances it would still be a poor country.

When I was at uni on one occasion we played this computer simulation (it was developed by the UN IIRC) which showed what it was like to run a less developed country. The unintended consequences of any small move were massive. Try, for example, to redistribute wealth and reduce the size of your army and the result of the simulation is your army stages a coup d'etat. I wish I could find this online because I think people would enjoy playing it and it gives a wider understanding of the problem.

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

ninky you really should read up on the works of Sen. I think you would like his work and he would give you a framework on which to build and develop your views that is more workable.

When I studied economics I chose to do a term of development economics and it is truly a depressing subject. There are all kinds of variables that hit under-developed countries, from inequalities of health, unstable armies, fragile eco-systems, uneducated workforces... the list goes on. Even if a country had truly egalitarian outlook and all of its people were treated the same, if that meant that they all earned $1.50 per day instead of some earning $1.00 and a lucky few earning $6.00, that country would still be poor and disadvantaged compared to the rest of the world - while I repeat - communism cannot work because those in power will always be more equal than others.

This is why I think the fair trade movement and the work of some grass-roots NGOs is so important. We also need a strong UN to keep countries honest. It is right that people get enough money for their cash crops than, not only do they have enough to eat, but also to educate their children as study after study show that education is the key to breaking free of poverty. Communism is not a way of breaking free from poverty. If a country changed its political allegiances it would still be a poor country.

When I was at uni on one occasion we played this computer simulation (it was developed by the UN IIRC) which showed what it was like to run a less developed country. The unintended consequences of any small move were massive. Try, for example, to redistribute wealth and reduce the size of your army and the result of the simulation is your army stages a coup d'etat. I wish I could find this online because I think people would enjoy playing it and it gives a wider understanding of the problem.

maybe i will but ever so slightly patronising here vivatifosi.

re: fair trade. whilst it is a voluntary movement (along the lines of the "big society" concept of cameron) i fear it is not going to make a significant difference. for one, the goods have to compete with non fair trade items and the majority of consumers are not going to opt to pay the difference for the majority of goods. also, it is open to abuse. independent (i.e.non fair trade organisation) monitoring of so-called fair trade companies has revealed they can be operating in ways that are just as bad. until we see more policing and prosecution along the lines of the recent 'organic' egg scam i don't think our consciences can be as clear as you might like.

there was a recently good documentary on kenya that showed farmers escaping poverty by forming co-operative alliances so as not to undercut each other on prices. also embracing crop advances that created a higher yield (not gm).

vivatifosi

I apologise if it came across as patronising ninky. I'm off to work shortly and had to type my post quickly, there are also a couple of typos in it that I don't have time to correct.

Re fair trade, I work in my spare time with an organisation involved in fair trade. For me, the key issue is getting the regulatory framework right. There is also a tendency to have competing regulatory frameworks (for example France may have one, the UK may have another) which causes problems for an organisation in the developing world if they have to achieve two sets of standards. I don't have time to post a bunch of hyperlinks, but there are studies to show that when the world is not in massive recession (as now) there is a gravitation towards more ethical products providing the mark ups are not massive. When money is not tight, these are issues that consumers think about.

Linton

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's amazing how we call our economic system 'capitalist', yet I think we're pretty far from the original conception of capitalism and free markets.

If we were really capitalist, the market would set interest rates, not a central bank. We would let failed companies and financial institutions go bankrupt, not bail them out, and creditors/bondholders/shareholders of failed companies would lose everything. We wouldn't have an enormous government that spends 50% of our GDP, and millions of families that depend on state entitlement programmes.

I think a lot of problems stem from the fact we're not capitalist enough - too many people work for or depend on the government, we have banks where shareholders do not exert enough pressure to limit ridiculous salaries and bonuses, and these institutions operate on the assumption if they fail, they will be bailed out. If bank accounts had no deposit protection, people would not invest in dodgy institutions like Northern Rock or Icelandic banks in the first place.

And people who dont have an economic justification could starve in the streets - solve lots of problems.

I would suggest the main reason we need large government is that the market is not capable on its own of providing a sufficiently good life for sufficient people to prevent the breakdown of civil order. Plus of course we are all allowed one vote, when in the true capitalist paradise your voting power should depend on your wealth.