The Swedish Model

Transparency with the government is the most important aspect to the Swedish model of state.  With no closed doors, everyone can understand exactly was is taking place, and how it will affect them.  I think it's interesting that a government like the Swedish model is quite powerful, given that it decides that fate of children instead of the family, yet there is not a huge aversion to it like most all-powerful governments have received in the past.  Transparency is the most essential part to this phenomenon, and I think that it's importance is evidence that most people don't want to have control over what happens to them, but would rather have someone else makes decisions, as long as the person understands why those decisions are being made.  I argued in an earlier post, in response to Declan, that dictatorships are the most natural form of governments for people, because people are naturally inclined to just give up their responsibility in return for protection.  Where most dictatorships go wrong in where Sweden went right, hiding everything behind lies and the like.  The reason why  most dictators lie is because their policies normally do not benefit the people as much as the people would like or expect, and the dictators are afraid that if the public knows the truth their house of cards will collapse.  The Swedish government doesn't have to worry about this, but it's policies are totally legit, and therefore they are willing to show everyone what's going on.  This means that the people will gladly have no power, which again it something natural for humans.   

Israel and The British

In this post I am going to attempt to talk a little about the conflict that is Israel (with the help of Wikipedia).  I think it’s probably the most hotly debated global issue that involves specific populations, and it was started (not exactly true, but for the purposes of MEH it was) after World War I and the British’s secret treaty that promised many people of Jewish heritage a safe haven in Israel, which was enacted upon when the British allowed the Jewish population to increase in Israel after that had taken control of it.  This is countered by the fact that Arab people had been living in Israel for the past 1300 years, and saw the take over of Jewish people as a horrible result from their help to the British during World War I.  This conflict had, and continues to have, huge ramifications across the world, and especially in the Middle East.  It put the British in a very difficult position, because it neither succumb to the Arab Nationalism, especially considering the rise of Hitler, who threatened the Jewish people, and leave the Jewish nation out to dry, but it couldn’t give the Jewish people complete control and absolutely embitter and anger the Arabs who had been living in the region for so long.  The British in some ways were saved from having to figure it out completely, because the problem was passed along to the United Nations after the Allied victory.  During the period between WWI and WWII, the British essentially tried to play the middle ground and hope that both sides would be comfortable with some sort of compromise.  But, as can been seen currently, the two sides were never able to be satisfied at the same time, and the British were left to try to make the best of a situation they had caused themselves by issuing conflicting promises.  

The Middle East and Europe

During the time between World War I and World War II there were many revolts in the Middle East that were centered around the idea of self-governing (see this Wikipedia article).  The British and French put all of these revolts down, although Egypt did end up becoming an independent nation in 1924.  But, it wasn’t true independence because the British used Cairo during WWII as the base for most its operations in the area, claiming all of their troop presence was legitimate because it needed to protect the Suez Canal.  Most of the revolts were obvious reactions to the hoodwinking British and French who had promised self-governance in return for help during WWI to defeat the Ottomans.  These revolts characterized the Middle Eastern attitude towards the invasion of European control, and it’s clear that the Middle East wasn’t going to succumb without a fight.   The being said, the Middle East didn’t have much success in throwing off the colonial powers because the sheer power Britain and France possessed.  All during the period between the two wars, especially considering the fact that oil was discovered in Persia in 1908, and then in Saudi Arabia in 1938, the colonial powers had their hand economic activity through out the region.  Although many of the states in the region gained independence after WWII, this did not mean they were left completely alone by Europeans.  Oil had clear ramifications for the Europeans because it was so important in maintaining a strong military and economic state.  Oil, much to the dismay of the Middle Eastern people, would keep a foreign hand in the Middle East until the present day.  This combined with the fact that religion has always been a huge dividing factor in the Middle East, has proven to cause more problems than anyone knows how to correct.  

Response to Charlie about Cold war

In response to Charlie's post about the simulation of the cold war we did in class, I felt that the simulation was in many ways pointless because in many ways the cold war was pointless.  When each side has the ability to completely and utterly destroy the opponent, it takes the fun out of trying to figure out how to approach the world from a militaristic stand point.  That combined with the fact that the way to "win" was to not kill the enemy was something I felt was silly, which is of course directly related to the fact that each side has tons of nukes.  I agree with Charlie on his point that there was a "realistic" (I put this in parentheses because Charlie has not idea how the Cold War actually, and nor do I, but nevertheless) aspect to the game in the fact that it was hard to predict what the other side was going to do for their turn.  I think that the game would have been better had there been a prize at the end, or something to truly egg on each side to victory.

But back to my point about how the cold war was pointless.  It's true that the expansionist Communists were something to fear for Americans, who saw that spread of communism as the inevitable fall of capitalism and liberty as they knew it.  But, the Communists power was waning well before the end of the cold war because of the weakness of their party in Russia, and all American's actions, which I agree with Charlie were more aggressive, were taken under the impression that the Russians were going to perpetrate havoc across the land.  It was as if the Americans were preparing to fight and enemy that had ceased to exist by the time they felt they were going to make a difference, making all of it pointless. 

Response to Charlie

In response to Charlie’s post about communism, I would say that Communism in its actual form was never even practiced in Russia for the exact reasons you mention.  I think the fact that Stalin found it legitimate to kill more peasants than should ever had been killed is a sign that Stalin wasn’t really a communist, but instead an authoritative dictator who had fantastically believed himself to be a communist, and therefore a representative of the people.  There were some communist aspects to Stalin’s regime, but I not feel it accurately reflects what communism is.  That being said, I also feel that Stalin is evidence of why communism can never actually work, cause something like Stalin will always prevent communism from actually working.  Why does Stalinesque things happen?  Because in no culture in the history of man has the poor and dejected people’s ever been helped to a point of comfort without simply turning them into rich people that take advantage of new poor people.  It’s a fatal flaw of living in a world where people are competitive and born with advantages.  There will never be an equilibrium that communism strives for, and this means that something like Stalin will always occur when communism is trying to found itself.  

Response to Charlie / Semi-Rant

In response to Charlie’s post about the economic policies of Keynes during the Great Depression, I would agree with the fact that it was truly World War II that brought the US out of their misery.  All the deficit spending Roosevelt had implemented, such as the public works organization that gave many people jobs, only helped put a temporary band-aid on the bleeding of the American people.  When Americans started to rally around the war effort, and the US needed strong manufacturing output in order to combat that behemoth Germany army, American’s economic fortunes changed.  What I think is interesting, is given all this, why did the Americans wait so long to join the war.  If turning America into a war state with tons of weapon manufacturing helped the economy, why didn’t they start doing this as soon as the Great Depression was getting bad and Hitler was slowly taking over Europe because England and France had no back bone.  Which brings me to another point, the fact that the British and French used appeasement to keep Hitler as bay makes me sick to my stomach.  I see not argument, except war fatigued, which is just a bad argument because an evil like Hitler does not fatigue, that can defend the British and French.  They should have mobilized their MILLIONS of colonial troops to their favor, borrowed money from everyone else in the war, and crushed Hitler, not let him start World War II.  Jesus….

Response to Mein Kampf

In regards to the reading in Mein Kampf, I am most struck by Hitler’s seemingly authoritative voice over the creation of race.  He seems to speak as though he was there when the Aryan race was created, and witnessed to the “culture-founding” aspects of that culture.  He offers to evidence to support any of his grand claims about different races, he simply states them as though they are simple facts of life, like one plus one is two.  What I do find interesting about his writing is his idea that inferior races are necessary for the advancement of higher races, and his idea that man came before the animal with regards to forced manual work.  Although I don’t agree wit the idea of an “inferior” race, I do understand what’s he’s talking about with regards to the importance of the conquered to the conqueror.  Most of Europe’s progress has been at the expense of different peoples around the world.  This doesn’t mean that Europeans are better than everyone else, they just have taken advantage of other’s to increase their own lot, something that although bad, is simply a matter of life.  People will always be exploiting others, whether it is through actual slavery or paid jobs.  In no way do I agree with Mein Kampf, but I do think that Hitler perceived something important when he noted the importance of inferior races for those races that needed to progress.