A Comparison Between the Great Depression and the Global Crisis

The 1929 stock market crash and the subsequent ‘great depression’ was the biggest economic crisis that the world has experienced. The depth and length of the crisis and the suffering that it caused is legendary. Therefore when the global financial crisis struck in 2007, many rushed to proclaim that we were about to experience another depression on a similar scale, or at least what some have termed a ‘great recession’. This paper will compare and contrast the two economic crises to analyse the key similarities and differences between the two. To do this, the paper will firstly provide an outline of the conditions that led to the 1929 crash in the economy. Moving on from here the paper will then look at the policy responses that were implemented to tackle the crisis before analysing the conditions that precipitated the 2007 financial crisis and the policy responses, to draw out the similarities and differences of each of the crises, and to ascertain were any lessons learned during the current global crisis from the policies of the great depression era. Finally the  paper will conclude with a discussion of the main points raised by the analysis of both crises and a look at the future prospects for recovery.

The Arrogance And Hypocrisy Of Imperialism

As the UN Security Council meets to thrash out a resolution on Syria, it seems like the arrogance and hypocrisy of the imperialists knows no bounds. Recently there have been calls from Western powers for Syrian President Assad to step down from power, with Jay Carney, the White House spokesman saying "Assad's fall is inevitable". UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, supposed to play a neutral role in world conflict situations, even chipped in saying "he hoped the Security Council would reflect international will to get Dr Assad to quit power". It seems that the Western imperialist thirst for regime change has not been quenched by the removal and murder of Gaddafi in Libya. Yet the standards that the imperialists apply to others are never applied to themselves. Such is the nature of the world order we live under.

Does Money Equal Power In American Politics?

“The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” (Marx, Engels). 

The American political system is often portrayed as a model liberal democracy where anyone can have access to power and decision making through a system of representative democracy. On the surface this is completely true, with open and transparent government at the core of the American political system. In the United States, the lobbying of politicians is a central feature of the system, with lobbying seen as an industry that is a natural part of a liberal democracy. However, a deeper look at lobbying, interest groups and political action committees (PAC’s) reveal a controversial world where critics suggest that money equals power and political influence can be bought. As the above quote from Karl Marx suggests, the power of capital is the same now as it was long ago and will be the same in the future as long as democracy is twinned with the capitalist mode of production where wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a minority.

Why Does NATO Still Exist?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) came into being at the end of World War II in 1949. The treaty was signed by twelve members in Washington, DC.  Although not explicit in the treaty, the alliance was a direct response to the perceived threat of the ideology and military power of the Soviet Union. The treaty was designed, in the words of NATO’s first Secretary General Lord Ismay “to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down” (Eden 2000, p.2). The main provision of the treaty was in its Article 5 which stated;

This Is What Class War Looks Like

If you look up the definition of 'war' in the Oxford English Dictionary you will learn that it is "a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country." The famous military theoretician Carl Von Clausewitz notoriously described war as "the continuation of politics by other means." I have no doubt that at the forefront of Clausewitz’s mind was the form of war defined above by Oxford when he pronounced his aphorism, however I believe that his view of war can be just as perfectly applied to a form that does not include armed conflict, but instead relies on acts of economic aggression to achieve its aims. The war that I am speaking of is of course class war, and it is occurring all around us.