Anti-Nolte: Did Bolshevism really cause National Socialism and Fascism?

4 posts

Theo

.

I think, it would be fair to say, that the reason big companies go to IPO is not because they are forced to or it has become some sort of tradition,or is a result of some sort of brainwashing, but because every company needs investments. Had IPO beeing technically and economically feasible previously, i.e. had information age come earlier, we would have seen the era of 'large capitalists' end sooner.

You can't be a sole owner and harness enough money to create a huge transnational business. And if you don't create a transnational business, someone else will - and sooner or later come to your own country and take away a huge share of your business, simply because he'll be able to race to the bottom of the market, while financing his business in other parts of the world.

This is what's happening with Kaspersky for example, who right now goes around the world, but urgently needs new money to push forward. Same with Yandex. In the modern world, unrestricted by national borders all that much, If you don't want to stagnate, you need to grow. To prevent Google from killing Yandex in the home field - Russia - Yandex needs itself to grow beyond Russian borders. And to grow, you need to constantly pump more and more money into business, thus every more or less big company requires IPO to take the fight for world share of its business to the new level.

What allowed 'capitalists' to survive previously, was difficulty to a) harness public money b) costs of transportation of goods worldwide c) more restricted national borders, absence of information, absence of sufficient economic/cultural exchange between countries

The same in Russia. I think, its apprx. 26% for social taxes, including pension fund and social securities fund.

But I don't think, these two are connected: managerial government and the end of 'rule of capitalists'. The latter is merely caused by scientific revolution in the infrastracture, IT, transportation in XXth century

. The former though does seem to be the result of 'Roosevelt era', Keynesian politics, which in itself is 'managerial' by nature. Nobody believes in free markets since Roosevelt and it naturally leads to everincreasing role of the government first in economics, and as a consequence - everywhere. If you government can tell you what to do with your money, it is only a matter of time, before it starts telling you what to do with your life, your family, etc.
President Camacho
Burnham cites two major reasons why managerial government's replacement of laissez-faire wasn't simply coincidental. The first is unrestrained capitalism's failure to guarantee full employment and the proper prioritization and allocation of resources, (culminating in the post-WWI depression throughout Europe and then the Great Depression), which forced governments everywhere to adopt the mantle of regulators and protectors of economic activity. The second reason for the rise of managerial society is that, unlike in the 'golden age' of capitalism in the 19th century-- which required only start up capital and a pool of relatively unskilled labor-- modern industry is much more complex and specialized and requires a diverse array of 'knowledge workers' in order to function.

You might want to check out this thread: http://www.mypostingcareer.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1939-a-guide-to-the-managerial-revolution/
Yeah, it lies in the nature of a bureaucratic structure to seek to regulate and control everything within its domain. That's a point that van Creveld made, and it's related to the development of nuclear weapons and primacy of internationalism in the first world which eliminated warfare between first-rate states . Stripped of its principal function of fighting other states, the machinery of the state turned itself inward. In places like the US and UK, this has resulted in a veritable war by government on the traditional social order.
Theo
Well, then what was it? It was called to action by gran bourgeoisie and received the laurels from white collars, yet it wasn't there for the bourgeoisie?

Do you mean, that NSDAP just 'tricked' them or what and in essence its goal was never to defend bourgeoise from societal changes, that marxism threatened it with?

One shouldn't forget, that Weimar republic constraints made militarism and consequent imperialism impossible, thus gran bourgeoisie had noone else to turn to to a) provide protection from marxism and consumption by the revolt of the workers b) to fully deploy the industrial might of the German nation in another imperialist quest for domains, markets, etc. other than nazism, since old Hindenburg government was evidently impotent.

Also, what control in theory German Reich exhibited over gran bourgeoisie, never actually led to,say, Siemens being nationalized or anything. Goering's five-year plans had little in common with totalitarian control by Soviet five-year plans. I remember, I read a document on said German five-year plans, it merely threatened with very hazy nationalization to companies, who couldn't live up to the requirements of industrial growth, but I never came upon any examples, whereas such threats were really put into practice.

I still don't see managerial regimes as anything, other than the result of evolution of both. Managerial regimes seem to be an evident outcome for a post-Keynesian economics married to an idea of infallibity of the masses and their personal Pope - elected representatives.

UPD: Should either part collapse, either a democratic model goes down or Keynesian economics gets screwed, we could see a more anarchic-capitalist model of government and economics in place, with less power to governments and 'middle bourgeoisie' and a new era for the 'petite bourgeoisie'.
Theo
I don't quite understand the second point. Could you elaborate?

Well, it has been made even before him by Mises in the 40's in his 'Omnipotent Government'. Anyway, I believe we are in agreement here.