----- Original Message ---- From: Patrick Bond <pbond at mail.ngo.za>
Anyhow, first, Doug, Hitler did lots to 'stimulate growth' by devalorizing capitals all around him, for awhile; FDR followed up with the military-industrial complex, which kickstarted accumulation quite nicely by their standards. Desperate efforts to stimulate growth is what intensifies the geopolitical tensions during times of capitalist crisis, right?
[WS:] Functionalist teleologism implicit in your argument really irks me. I really have problems accepting the idea that things happen because "the system" needs them - but then I've always had aversion to idealism of any stripes. I would argue that every conflict typically has many very different causes - capitalist profit motive is one of them, to be sure, but certaintly neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition. I can think of far more compelling contributing factors, such as Germany wanting control of energy sources, which was denied them by the colonial powers. Ditto for Japan. Control of oil production was of utmost strategic importance at that time. Far more important, I would argue, than abstract need for accumulation - which as any abstraction is a suspect concept to begin with.
Having said that, however, I think that you may be up to something predicting social and political conflicts as an outcome of the currect economic downturn. There is ample historical evidence that economic downturns tend to produce fascist movements rather than socialist revolutions. The latter tended to emerge from the ashes of backward rural societies whose backward power structures had been undermined by wars and foreign invasions (Russia, China) - or simply brought in on the bayonets of the Red Army. I do not think those social-historic conditions exist anymore, so socialist revolution is rather unlikely.
A fascist movement is a very different story, however. Its pre-conditions: pronounced social stratification, a liberal democracy weakened by a severe economic crisis, and resultant downward mobility of large segments of the population are with us today. Whether they will produce another fascist movement is an open question - but the signs of such movements (growing popularity of far-right parties) are already visible all over Europe. I would also argue that much of the conflict in sub-Saharan Africa has similar social origins - and as such it is an African version of fascism (i.e. ethnic identities used as a diversion from what is essentially a class conflict in downwardly mobile economies.)
To sum it up, I provisionally agree with your position, but for different reasons. I think cde. Henwood may be too optimistic claiming that this is business as usual and the current crisis being a mountain giving birth to a mouse. It is quite likely that social conflicts, possibly turning into fascist movements, are not an unlikely outcome. But the, nobody knows for sure. It could well be that what now looks like a mountain will give birth to a mouse.
Wojtek