Trying to find the survey that according that rating at its publication source was beyond difficult and was much easier to find via a report by Izvestia that picked up the info and linked to it. But then, that report doesn’t tell the whole story, just the military rankings. Finally after much clicking, the page showing the above rankings was discovered,
Fascism arose precisely in order to ensure that the "economic whip' remained in the hands of the employer and the capitalist class.
Though how useful it has been in incentivising people to work is dubious, given that it requires that the bulk of the workforce be ill housed, malnourished and uneducated. The reforms, after World War II, about whose provenance Polanyi had so many sensible things to say, were productive of enormous increases in productivity, increases which far outweighed higher labour costs.
Consider the advantages to employers of having workforces whose members are not, for example, prone to debilitating dental infections. Consider the advantages, first noticed in the famous State education systems (California's Universities, Wisconsin's famous pre-eminence) of the expansion of secondary and higher education in the UK which produced an avalanche of talented producers in every field from social classes in which normally education-at a very primitive level- ended at 14 and entrance into the equivalent of High school was reserved for a tiny minority passing the tough 11+ examination.
What neo-liberalism did, by reclaiming social reform costs in order to enhance the interests of capital (in the short term) and to break the challenges that Trade Unions (even those purged of socialists) represented, by clawing back the benefits of (in the UK) the NHS and free tuition while it produced short term gains for the capitalists, began the rapid destruction of society. It was this, the cessation of advances produced by a more secure, more mature workforce, that, together with the flight of capital (enabled by the neo-liberal 'reforms' such as Thatcher's Big Bang) which levelled down the value of labour in the imperial metropoles.
I will now, or rather soon, read Germain's piece with fingers crossed: I hope not to discover a return, 200 years on, to Arthur Young's notorious quip that the poor will only work if kept close to starvation. It was a position echoing Mandeville, Locke and others of a criminal caste of mind which he later regretted. But it went on to be the watchword of Chicago's Department of Economics and the motto above the gates of Buchenwald and Auschwitz, the summation of fascist reacytion "Work will make you free."
i've just scanned Germain's article which is not bad. It certainly doesn't justify my paranoid reaction. Still he makes the usual mistakes of eliding fascism and populism (they are polar opposites) and suggesting that liberalism which is fascism with slippers on relaxing before a warm fire is neo-liberalism's antagonist.
Nov 20, 2023·edited Nov 20, 2023Liked by Karl Sanchez
I read "What is History" by E. H. Carr years ago which I enjoyed at the time. An article was recently published with the subtitle: "Revisiting E. H. Carr 100 years on."
"A Second Twenty Years' Crisis?" by Randall Germain. October 25, 2023
"E.H. Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis (1939), has a well-deserved reputation as a classic text that helped launch the academic discipline of International Relations (IR). Not only did Carr identify and dissect what would emerge as the two leading schools of thought in IR—utopianism and realism—he also applied a keen eye to the tumultuous decades after the Great War, when efforts to re-establish a functioning international political system foundered on a fundamental disruption to its most important operating principles. Carr framed these in terms of the relationship between power and morality, arguing that the latter had ultimately to accommodate itself to the changing dynamics of the former. ..."
Relationship between power and morality sounds like what we fact today...
"The key insight we can take from the work of Carr and his compatriots is that the near term future of world order continues to rest primarily on how the rich world organizes its political economy. This means that solutions to the so-called crisis in world order need to come first and foremost from the global North rather than its purported “challengers” in the global South.4 It also suggests the future is perhaps a bit more open-ended than often portrayed. The past may be a foreign country, as the famous saying goes, but it is not yet entirely unrecognizable."
"One of the central insights of The Twenty Years’ Crisis is that the distinction between “have” and “have not” states was a critical problem for the international system. Carr not only recognized how far the prevailing distribution of power had changed; he also called attention to the arbitrary ideational basis of world order, what he identified as the “harmony of interests” doctrine. The twenty years’ crisis, then, arose from the erosion of the dominant position of “have” states, who were unwilling to relinquish or renegotiate any aspect of their long-established privilege."
I had never heard of the "Economic Whip" and that might explain some of events today
"All three mid-twentieth century scholars recognized the central importance of what Carr called, in a prescient set of lectures first delivered on the BBC in 1951, the “economic whip.”6 This term signified the incentivization to work, which since the advent of the Poor Laws in Elizabethan England had become a central pillar of the new capitalist economy. Balancing the need for an incentivized labor force against the social and moral consequences of abject poverty—a previously unknown condition—generated Polanyi’s “double movement.” This was a broad range of popular mobilizations whose actions ultimately blunted the economic whip. By the time Carr delivered his lectures, he believed the economic whip to have been discarded as a feature of modern life. And for much of the post-1945 period this was the consensus in the rich world: our three observers lived out the final years of their lives secure in the belief that living standards would improve, while poverty and inequality levels fell, however these were measured.
"In the rich world, these developments have led to upsurges in populism and nativism along with governmental efforts to recalibrate the openness of cross border trade and investment, which have been the lifeblood of economic growth for much of the global South. Carr, Polanyi, and Mitrany would not be surprised at this development, for it reprises in certain respects the response to the first twenty years’ crisis from within the rich world. Fascism and Japanese militarism, after all, arose within the most “advanced” societies of their time: although they were “have not” states in relation to Britain, France, and the United States, they would be seen as part of the rich world of their day. It is important to recall that in the 1930s fascist movements were active in nearly every European and North American country. It was not a foreign implant. The principal challenge to world order during the first twenty years’ crisis came from within the rich world."
"The principal challenge to world order during the first twenty years’ crisis came from within the rich world."" And it also contributed to the situation from 1885-1914. Balance of Power was all the rage when reading pre-1915 political literature. The conflict over Africa by the Plundering nations and the revolts for national liberation in the Balkans drove much. Few look deeply into the 1905 Russian Revolution, but that set the stage for 1917. Imperialism remained ascendent after WW1 in the form of the USA and Japan--look at the 1920s Dollar Diplomacy and the ruin it caused in the Western Hemisphere. Japan was on an Imperial role from its defeat of Russia in 1905-6 until it chose to make war with the USA.
However, the #1 factor in Geopolitics is military power which is usually directly correlated to industrial and commercial power. The alteration since 2000 has seen the Outlaw US Empire expel the last of its strength in Iraq and Afghanistan as it had to rely on proxies for all its other (NATO) escapades and then onto hybrid solutions. China's rise can be seen as linear, while Russia must be seen as parabolic and continuing to rapidly rise. Russia's closet allies--China and Iran--are benefitting from their intertwined strategic partnerships. The Outlaw US Empire can be rated as declining in a linear manner as systems age and become obsolescent. We can rate Europe and most of NATO as only threats from their nuclear capabilities. And we know that Russia doesn't covet anymore land than those related to Great Russia that were essentially given away and now wish to return. That means NATO's entire military posture is wrong and building up forces to defend against Russia is a complete waste of scarce national resources. Plus, the Outlaw US Empire has so completely turned the EU into its colony that Europeans need to question just who their genuine enemy is. In Asia, China doesn't covet anymore lands either, so the entire doctrinal approach to Russia, China, Iran, et al, is completely wrong and is actually a product of projection for it's the Outlaw US Empire whose #1 policy goal is to rule the world.
The above reality is what the Global majority see and understand. That makes it rather easy to side with Russia and China and rebuff the Outlaw US Empire. This might not seem so readily apparent, but the Zionist's Genocide has altered the field and views are changing while also hardening.
Seriously, the two organizations are Conservative Establishment stalwarts, but both note realities that are beyond ignored--they're discarded out of hand--and thus policy never changes to a different approach. How many more years can the Empire remain on the attack? The indicators say it ought to stop now, but again who believes indicators---USA! USA! USA!
That’s the modus operandi isn’t it. I see it everywhere. For some time now the Ukraine situation has been obvious but it’s always “well it certainly looks like the situation is dire but maybeis Elenskyyy sacrifices a goat when the moon is in the third quarter Putin will be overthrown or have a heart attack.
Fascism arose precisely in order to ensure that the "economic whip' remained in the hands of the employer and the capitalist class.
Though how useful it has been in incentivising people to work is dubious, given that it requires that the bulk of the workforce be ill housed, malnourished and uneducated. The reforms, after World War II, about whose provenance Polanyi had so many sensible things to say, were productive of enormous increases in productivity, increases which far outweighed higher labour costs.
Consider the advantages to employers of having workforces whose members are not, for example, prone to debilitating dental infections. Consider the advantages, first noticed in the famous State education systems (California's Universities, Wisconsin's famous pre-eminence) of the expansion of secondary and higher education in the UK which produced an avalanche of talented producers in every field from social classes in which normally education-at a very primitive level- ended at 14 and entrance into the equivalent of High school was reserved for a tiny minority passing the tough 11+ examination.
What neo-liberalism did, by reclaiming social reform costs in order to enhance the interests of capital (in the short term) and to break the challenges that Trade Unions (even those purged of socialists) represented, by clawing back the benefits of (in the UK) the NHS and free tuition while it produced short term gains for the capitalists, began the rapid destruction of society. It was this, the cessation of advances produced by a more secure, more mature workforce, that, together with the flight of capital (enabled by the neo-liberal 'reforms' such as Thatcher's Big Bang) which levelled down the value of labour in the imperial metropoles.
I will now, or rather soon, read Germain's piece with fingers crossed: I hope not to discover a return, 200 years on, to Arthur Young's notorious quip that the poor will only work if kept close to starvation. It was a position echoing Mandeville, Locke and others of a criminal caste of mind which he later regretted. But it went on to be the watchword of Chicago's Department of Economics and the motto above the gates of Buchenwald and Auschwitz, the summation of fascist reacytion "Work will make you free."
i've just scanned Germain's article which is not bad. It certainly doesn't justify my paranoid reaction. Still he makes the usual mistakes of eliding fascism and populism (they are polar opposites) and suggesting that liberalism which is fascism with slippers on relaxing before a warm fire is neo-liberalism's antagonist.
WTF happened to GDP? Or was it always Gross Deception Posture?
I read "What is History" by E. H. Carr years ago which I enjoyed at the time. An article was recently published with the subtitle: "Revisiting E. H. Carr 100 years on."
"A Second Twenty Years' Crisis?" by Randall Germain. October 25, 2023
https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/a-second-twenty-years-crisis/
"E.H. Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis (1939), has a well-deserved reputation as a classic text that helped launch the academic discipline of International Relations (IR). Not only did Carr identify and dissect what would emerge as the two leading schools of thought in IR—utopianism and realism—he also applied a keen eye to the tumultuous decades after the Great War, when efforts to re-establish a functioning international political system foundered on a fundamental disruption to its most important operating principles. Carr framed these in terms of the relationship between power and morality, arguing that the latter had ultimately to accommodate itself to the changing dynamics of the former. ..."
Relationship between power and morality sounds like what we fact today...
"The key insight we can take from the work of Carr and his compatriots is that the near term future of world order continues to rest primarily on how the rich world organizes its political economy. This means that solutions to the so-called crisis in world order need to come first and foremost from the global North rather than its purported “challengers” in the global South.4 It also suggests the future is perhaps a bit more open-ended than often portrayed. The past may be a foreign country, as the famous saying goes, but it is not yet entirely unrecognizable."
"One of the central insights of The Twenty Years’ Crisis is that the distinction between “have” and “have not” states was a critical problem for the international system. Carr not only recognized how far the prevailing distribution of power had changed; he also called attention to the arbitrary ideational basis of world order, what he identified as the “harmony of interests” doctrine. The twenty years’ crisis, then, arose from the erosion of the dominant position of “have” states, who were unwilling to relinquish or renegotiate any aspect of their long-established privilege."
I had never heard of the "Economic Whip" and that might explain some of events today
"All three mid-twentieth century scholars recognized the central importance of what Carr called, in a prescient set of lectures first delivered on the BBC in 1951, the “economic whip.”6 This term signified the incentivization to work, which since the advent of the Poor Laws in Elizabethan England had become a central pillar of the new capitalist economy. Balancing the need for an incentivized labor force against the social and moral consequences of abject poverty—a previously unknown condition—generated Polanyi’s “double movement.” This was a broad range of popular mobilizations whose actions ultimately blunted the economic whip. By the time Carr delivered his lectures, he believed the economic whip to have been discarded as a feature of modern life. And for much of the post-1945 period this was the consensus in the rich world: our three observers lived out the final years of their lives secure in the belief that living standards would improve, while poverty and inequality levels fell, however these were measured.
"In the rich world, these developments have led to upsurges in populism and nativism along with governmental efforts to recalibrate the openness of cross border trade and investment, which have been the lifeblood of economic growth for much of the global South. Carr, Polanyi, and Mitrany would not be surprised at this development, for it reprises in certain respects the response to the first twenty years’ crisis from within the rich world. Fascism and Japanese militarism, after all, arose within the most “advanced” societies of their time: although they were “have not” states in relation to Britain, France, and the United States, they would be seen as part of the rich world of their day. It is important to recall that in the 1930s fascist movements were active in nearly every European and North American country. It was not a foreign implant. The principal challenge to world order during the first twenty years’ crisis came from within the rich world."
"The principal challenge to world order during the first twenty years’ crisis came from within the rich world."" And it also contributed to the situation from 1885-1914. Balance of Power was all the rage when reading pre-1915 political literature. The conflict over Africa by the Plundering nations and the revolts for national liberation in the Balkans drove much. Few look deeply into the 1905 Russian Revolution, but that set the stage for 1917. Imperialism remained ascendent after WW1 in the form of the USA and Japan--look at the 1920s Dollar Diplomacy and the ruin it caused in the Western Hemisphere. Japan was on an Imperial role from its defeat of Russia in 1905-6 until it chose to make war with the USA.
However, the #1 factor in Geopolitics is military power which is usually directly correlated to industrial and commercial power. The alteration since 2000 has seen the Outlaw US Empire expel the last of its strength in Iraq and Afghanistan as it had to rely on proxies for all its other (NATO) escapades and then onto hybrid solutions. China's rise can be seen as linear, while Russia must be seen as parabolic and continuing to rapidly rise. Russia's closet allies--China and Iran--are benefitting from their intertwined strategic partnerships. The Outlaw US Empire can be rated as declining in a linear manner as systems age and become obsolescent. We can rate Europe and most of NATO as only threats from their nuclear capabilities. And we know that Russia doesn't covet anymore land than those related to Great Russia that were essentially given away and now wish to return. That means NATO's entire military posture is wrong and building up forces to defend against Russia is a complete waste of scarce national resources. Plus, the Outlaw US Empire has so completely turned the EU into its colony that Europeans need to question just who their genuine enemy is. In Asia, China doesn't covet anymore lands either, so the entire doctrinal approach to Russia, China, Iran, et al, is completely wrong and is actually a product of projection for it's the Outlaw US Empire whose #1 policy goal is to rule the world.
The above reality is what the Global majority see and understand. That makes it rather easy to side with Russia and China and rebuff the Outlaw US Empire. This might not seem so readily apparent, but the Zionist's Genocide has altered the field and views are changing while also hardening.
This has got to be Russian disinformation or something.
Did you click the links?
Seriously, the two organizations are Conservative Establishment stalwarts, but both note realities that are beyond ignored--they're discarded out of hand--and thus policy never changes to a different approach. How many more years can the Empire remain on the attack? The indicators say it ought to stop now, but again who believes indicators---USA! USA! USA!
That’s the modus operandi isn’t it. I see it everywhere. For some time now the Ukraine situation has been obvious but it’s always “well it certainly looks like the situation is dire but maybeis Elenskyyy sacrifices a goat when the moon is in the third quarter Putin will be overthrown or have a heart attack.