WE had massive losses in economical production and human welfare from WW1. Even if we "won" that war, the losses were catastrophic. That left a very weakened country, facing a very real utopian ideal unfolding in the east.

Yes i agree that the economic cycle has a lot to do with the rise of political extremism. That's why i think keynes is basically a genius who had the picture perfectly clear in his mind, and tried to communicate it to the world.

Keynes saw the provisions he suggested to deal with the economical cycles as a necessary evil (given that goverment intervention in the economy was an "evil" thought for a liberal, and keynes was a real liberal) to avoid the worst political outcomes.

Keynes before i think everybody else pointed out that mass unvoluntary unemployment is a social disaster with massive political consequences that has to be avoided at all cost.

He correctly determined that a capitalist economy wouldn't reach a full-employment equilibrium by itself every time, especially in a gold standard regime. He knew capitalistic organization was by far the best way yet devised to manage economic production. But he was fully aware of some of the systemic market failures that could arise in some circumstances.

And he gave us the tools to deal with them in an elegant way.

Then came the left, which abused of his name, and his policies, so much that what was before thought as reasonable policies to deal with special circumstances became for the left something to be done everytime all the time, and for the right the sign that the left was stupid and incapable at economic management.

No one forgets that Nazi is national socialism and yes, I knew Mussolini was a socialist.

Mostly people here are arguing over nothing.

I don't know what you're talking about in the last paragraph though. Maybe Italy? That's not what happened in the US. I'm not an economist and I'm sure I'll get a little of this wrong:

but during a thriving economy in the 60s both parties at first and then the right leaning party provided massive stimulus with military funding, as the economy faltered Nixon I guess was the left winger who ****ed up with price controls and never backing away from cheaper and cheaper money, the "left" party bit the bullet and reigned in money supply (Carter-Volker), the during the recovery the kleptocratic and previously most corrupt administration ever "right" ran massive deficits and blew up pork military spending, then the "left" presided over a growing economy and budget surpluses during good times (Keynesian), followed by the "right" blowing up the deficit and military spending and massive tax cuts in a booming economy (anti-Keynesian), and then when the economy crashed again it was left for the "left" to provide the Keynesian stimulus to start the recovery. Now that the recovery is going well, the "right" is cutting taxes and blowing up military spending again.

Continental europe had several deficit spending measures, even with high inflation going on, presented as "keynesian policies" during stagflation by leftwing governments, because "unemployment is high and keynes said we have to do deficits when unemployment is high".

That includes italy and france for sure, possibly other countries (i think germany dodged that bullet at the time).

Yes american history is less clear cut with "party responsibility" although i suggest you to distance yourself from the common american mistake to think that's presidents that decide budgets. Check congressional majorities which are much more relevant in the matter.

Current budget measures by republicans are terrible and a punch in the face for decent economists for sure. Republican opposition to deficits in 2009-2010 was insane too.

Microbet for example during reagan years, house was ALWAYS democratic.

Here you can check presidents and congressional majorities

http://goliards.us/adelphi/deficits/index.html

Me from another thread:

Bob Avakian and Revcom seeming very very culty.

1:35



imo

Stealing children from indigenous people, and in the modern day Global South people, is one of the most Amerikkkan things you can do. It has a long and glorious tradition going all the way back to the earliest days when Europeans just had a few British colonies on the American continent. I imagine this kind of thing will continue full-throttle until the very last day that Amerikkka exists.



‘Barbaric’: America’s cruel history of separating children from their parents
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.1ccdbbb5b502

"Amerikkka".

Einbert,

The reactionaries have a point. If you really don't like prisoners with bags over their heads you might look into this for an avatar.

Yeah but he doesn't just want anarchy. He wants to replace the American government/economy with ... ? after he gets his revolution.

He espouses pretty much everything most of us all agree to being in opposition of, but he legit wants radicalization. America literally must die and be replaced with whatever it is he is envisioning.

I personally like everything he's up in arms about, but I think he doesn't understand people. The world he envisions is impossible because people are human. America is and has a grotesque history, but so does all of humanity and by every metric things are getting better even though the global inequities and disparities are still disgusting. At least to me they are. I'd love to have open borders and no police too but you have to change humanity in a psychological manner for that to happen. It would take centuries, possibly accelerated due to technology.

I'm not entirely sure what exactly einbert wants, but I've felt like America needs more libertarianism in some aspects and more socialism in others. It can preserve its economic engine and choose to make morally correct decisions, it just chooses to be corrupt and serve its vanity and has for a long time. But for einbert to get what he wants, the world will end up completely different from what he thinks it would look like, and arguably would just end up destroying itself if he had his way.

So fascism and WW2 is avoided if 'the left' had only behaved themselves. Pretty grand claim.
Capitalism has had centuries to self regulate, the crises continue. State interventions, a more managed capitalism prolonged the post war boom but did not prevent the crisis of the 1970s. A resurgent extreme right in the test case of the Chilean coup where thousands of leftists and trade unionists were massacred gave birth to the neo liberal Washington consensus. Doesn't seem to be working out too well though, ironically it is the self proclaimed communists in Beijing who are set to win the 21st century - a good example of a government claiming to be something they're not ie nationalist not communist. And a showcase for the potential superiority of a centralised economy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Be careful, those two words combined trigger 99% of this forum.

I don't see why they would. No one here apart from Einbert wants totalitarian socialism.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...730280963.html

Make no mistake about it, when the time comes, conservative and liberal media alike will back fascist violence. This is the far right-wing candidate for President of Brazil.



This is the Wall Street Journal's endorsement of the fascist candidate:


They've sympathized with Pinochet, the murderous fascist dictator installed in the U.S. to oversee the right-wing takeover of Chile in 1973, in the past. He's recently become a hero of the far-right pepe crew.


One last note and I'll let you go on about your day. Absolutely nothing terrifying about this one:

Remember the US-backed coup of Dilma Rousseff happened under a liberal Democratic administration (it occurred in 2016), not under Trump!

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...252900864.html

https://t.co/tzGIRCF1Sf

SE Asia didn't even make the cut on that list.