|
question idea that autarchy was designed to facilitate Holocaust
|
→Autarky ???: Reply
|
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=No|class=C|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Economics |
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=Mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Politics |
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Trade |
{{WikiProject Trade|importance=Mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Anarchism|importance=}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Annual readership}} |
|||
{{section sizes}} |
|||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Autarky/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} |
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Autarky/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} |
||
== |
== Autarky ??? == |
||
I've noticed errors on this page several times over the years - fixed them a few times even. |
|||
[[North Korea]] receives food aid from Japan, among others. It's not trade but diplomacy, but it would imply a lack of self-sufficiency incompatible with autarchy. --[[Special:Contributions/62.58.152.52|62.58.152.52]] ([[User talk:62.58.152.52|talk]]) 12:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Now the page is more convoluted and nonsense than it was previously. This is not the only page this is happening on - it appears to be a concerted effort to mislead. |
|||
[[North Korea]] trades with [[China]], doesn't it? —[[User:Ashley Y|Ashley Y]] 04:31, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC) |
|||
: Yes, it does, off and on. I think that Cuba has been, at times, an autarky as well. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless]] 07:59, 30 May 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Autarky failed in a pre-globalized world, very conclusively and could only do more harm in the world today. |
|||
::I doubt it. [[Cuba]] traded with [[Comecon]] a lot. After the fall of the Soviets, it has had to [[import]] [[Petroleum|oil]] and [[export]] its [[sugar]]. There have been efforts to reduce imports and increase exports but I wouldn't call that autarky. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:80.58.3.239|80.58.3.239]] ([[User talk:80.58.3.239|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/80.58.3.239|contribs]]){{#if:08:10, 14 September 2004 (UTC)| 08:10, 14 September 2004 (UTC)|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
This is not debatable. I will be redoing most of this page. |
|||
:::The Soviet-Type-Economies in Central & Eastern Europe in the twentieth century also aimed for a limited form of autarky. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:86.15.13.4|86.15.13.4]] ([[User talk:86.15.13.4|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/86.15.13.4|contribs]]){{#if:20:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)| 20:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
My apologies if I'm stepping on toes but I find this particular idea dangerous without context. |
|||
Not exactly what you'd call 'autarky' in the Eastern and Soviet bloc, it was more mercantilism. Khrushchev called it the 'specialization of the socialist bloc' I believe, it meant that each country would produce goods they excelled at doing, it was actually quite capitalist and based on comparative advantage, it was adopted after Stalin's death when the USSR was promoting that all countries should become an autarky by themselves. |
|||
- Jakksen [[User:Notarky|Notarky]] ([[User talk:Notarky|talk]]) 18:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Funnily enough, it was Khrushchev's demand that Albania become the 'bread basket' of the bloc that led Albania into autarky and away from the Soviet bloc, eventually leaving Comecon and the Warsaw Pact. [[Enver Hoxha]] believed that the Soviet plan was capitalist, and was the same as what the Western countries did to the Third World in exploiting it. |
|||
:Of course you are wlecome to edit; however, please be careful about [[WP:VNT]]. You seem to have made some pretty strong claims - that Autarky has "very conclusively" failed - without resorting to any sort of scholarly consensus. I am not saying that such consensus does not exist, I am not well educated on this subject; but you need to bring reliable, non-fringe sources to the table if you're changing a Wikipedia article like this. [[User:Uness232|Uness232]] ([[User talk:Uness232|talk]]) 14:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC) |
|||
This is also very relevant, considering that the concept of autarky goes with the '[[international division of labor]]', which autarkies tried to free their countries from. The basic idea is, you have the rich urban advanced countries with the big industry and processing, and you have the backward rural poor countries, which pull out the raw materials and make the wheat for the rich countries. I suppose you could call it neo-imperialism. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/121.223.175.93|121.223.175.93]] ([[User talk:121.223.175.93|talk]]) 12:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Are you the person who wrote sweeping generalisations such as "Economists are generally supportive of free trade." and cite only a former director of the World Bank to justify that claim? You couldn't find three organisations more dedicated to US hegemony than the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. |
|||
:it's a logical fallacy to say "this idea has always failed, therefore the idea is stupid". human powered flight failed for centuries before it became a reality. and who is measuring the failure, and were the causes of the failure endogenous and exogenous to autarky. A country like bhutan is an autarky. Cuba had had autarky forced on it with USA sanctions (and recriminations against other nations that don't mirror these sanctions). |
|||
::::Was [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] an autarky for at least part of its existence prior to World War II? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/129.15.127.254|129.15.127.254]] ([[User talk:129.15.127.254|talk]]) 04:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> |
|||
:Then we need to examine the phrase "free trade"… the word free is a misnomer and extremely ideologically. As prize winning economist [[Ha-Joon Chang|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang]] points out in [[Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Samaritans:_The_Myth_of_Free_Trade_and_the_Secret_History_of_Capitalism]] all wealthy nations have used trade barriers (and often colonialism) at one time or another to increase their domestic capacity to compete with important. I could go on and on, but your comments are extremely ideological and this page comes across as something published by the IMF or Radio USA propaganda. [[User:WideEyedPupil|WideEyedPupil]] ([[User talk:WideEyedPupil|talk]]) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not logged in but I'm Jakksen. |
|||
:::::That was mentioned in the article before, but a user removed it, stating "autarky was not a goal and embargoes were ineffective". I don't know what the veracity of that is. [[User:Korny O'Near|Korny O'Near]] 04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I did not write anything regarding economists. |
|||
::::::It's hard to prove, as most information on the subject of Nazi Germany's economic policies is for one reason or the other unavailable (it's actually hard to get any information on Nazi Germany that isn't a tertiary source or an unverified testimony), but I have seen many (technically unreliable) sources state that this "autarky goal" was more or less a result of the economic embargoes levied against Germany just prior to the outbreak of the war, which Germany answered by trading goods directly with foreign citizens instead of going through banks and governments (rendering most of their international trade effectively undocumented). <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.77.162.0|24.77.162.0]] ([[User talk:24.77.162.0|talk]]) 13:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::I'm just someone who is annoyed that an economic policy is pitched as a "characteristic" that's how it was changed the last time I freaked on the word quality. |
|||
::That lie is the first sentence. |
|||
Speaking of Soviet-style economies, didn't [[Albania]] try to be an autarky under [[Enver Hoxha]]? I thought I read once that their constitution once forbade foreign trade and they had to pass a special act of parliament each time they had to trade anything, but I can't verify this. They had certain strategic minerals such as chrome and oil and I think they were self-sufficient for food production, so, despite being a small country they could have survived in a limited way without trade. [[User:Zagubov|Zagubov]] 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::There is a concerted effort to change the definition of this word - it's wrong tho and I don't understand how this is contentious at all. [[Special:Contributions/107.77.206.115|107.77.206.115]] ([[User talk:107.77.206.115|talk]]) 00:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::The Inca Empire was '''not''' socialist, but there is academic consensus that it was an Autarky, and it didn't fail. For more info see what I posted on the talk page of [[Economy of the Inca Empire]]. I hate it when modern ideas get us to 'denounce' things of the past. Inca society was mainly happy (eh), but the thing is that the Inca socio-economical system was just that, a system used to adapt to the environnement and in the absence of a currency. There was never an 'intent' of generosity. It was institutionalized generosity. The Inca economy is fascinating, and it had success. Thats why its fascinating. However it was born as a way to adapt to a harsh environnement, and out of geographical isolation from outside influence (trade was rare, happened in social hierarchy, and in a state like fashion. By rare I mean that there were only two polities practicing it, the Chincha chiefdom and the people of the northern coast. And it was troc, not money used. Except in Ecuador, where this 'institution of reciprocity' didn't exist, and [[Axe-monies|axe-moniess]] were used). In other words no, autarky, as an economic model, was never proven to inevitably fail, tho I wouldn't want to live under an autarky today, in europe. [[User:Encyclopédisme|Encyclopédisme]] ([[User talk:Encyclopédisme|talk]]) 19:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I think you're on to something here. I did a quick web search - [http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-171.html this article] says Hoxha instituted something like full autarky (or "self-reliance", as they called it) in 1976. And [http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-243.html this one] says it was relaxed a little after his death in 1985, but didn't really end until 1991. [[User:Korny O'Near|Korny O'Near]] 18:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I seem to remember the other Eastern Bloc countries did trade with each other via [[Comecon]] and [[Yugoslavia]] traded with just about everybody. but that Albania was pretty unique in their commitment to self-sufficiency and it tied in with their limited diplomatic links and a command economy set at a low consumption rate. I heard their isolation was so extreme they only opened their (single) airport for a few days each week. |
|||
::I don't have enough references to add this to the main article, but it looks like a good example of a modern(ish) autarky. I also remember that [[Rhodesia]] under [[UDI]] was banned from trade and had an extensive import substitution programme making it a closed kind of market economy. I'm not sure if that counts as an autarky as it was an externally imposed blockade.[[User:Zagubov|Zagubov]] 10:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
What would be necessary for a state to be a sustainable autarky? Is not the world as a whole an economic autarky? Is that sustainable? [[User:168.7.251.84|168.7.251.84]] 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)David |
|||
:A state would be a sustainable autarky if it produced exactly the products it needed in exactly the amounts it needed them. It's certainly doable, but it's not efficient. Each state has things it's got a competitive advantage in - things it can produce more cheaply than other states (oil in Saudi Arabia, timber in Canada, etc.) The Saudis *could* just drill the oil they need for their own consumption, and try to produce all the goods they need, but this would be inefficient. Instead of spending a lot of money to try to grow lettuce in the desert, they're better off trading oil for lettuce with the United States - and the US is better off too. This is the basic economic argument that trade is good because specialization increases efficiency. So one of the reasons North Korea is so much poorer than South Korea is its unwillingess to trade and therefore the inefficiency of some of its domestic industries. There are lots of other reasons, but that's a big one. |
|||
:The world is certainly an autarky because we don't trade with anyone off the planet. It is definitely sustainable (leaving aside arguments about resource extraction, pollution, and the like) - any autarky can be sustainable, it's just that autarky is not efficient if there are potential trading partners who have different economic specializations than you do and if transportation costs etc. are not too high. In the case of Earth, obviously there are no possible trading partners so the planet is by default an autarky. [[User:Fasrad|Fasrad]] 19:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*In my A-level history classes (in the UK) - [[Nazi Germany]] was given as an example of a wannabe autarchy - hence invading the Ukraine for its fertile land and coal.[[User:Malick78|Malick78]] 14:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I think someone went overboard on the negative epithets to describe North Korea. While we may not agree with them for numerous reasons, I don't thing we need to enumerate these with a whole bunch of adjectives every time we name the country, and it does kind of fly in the face of "Neutrality". Maybe a moderator or impartial editor could look at this: [[Special:Contributions/92.251.200.233|92.251.200.233]] ([[User talk:92.251.200.233|talk]]) 10:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
What about Maoist China as an example (between 1949-76)? According to the page on the History of the People's Republic of China, "These reforms were a reversal of the Maoist policy of autarky and economic self-reliance" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_(1976%E2%80%9389). Furthermore, according to an article at Yale Global, "Zweig explains that significant differences in prices inside and outside China, created by decades of economic autarky and cheap labor, meant that those who controlled international trade could earn large profits. ... Only they could undermine Maoist justifications for autarky and overcome political resistance to liberalization" (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/china-joins-global-economy-part-one). <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.229.76.147|203.229.76.147]] ([[User talk:203.229.76.147#top|talk]]) 06:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Suggest dropping right-wing vs. left-wing dichotomy for proponents & opponents of National autarky == |
|||
I'd argue with putting Fascism, State capitalism, Liberal internationalism under the "Right-wing" banner, and I'm sure there would be disagreement on others. Also, Nationalism & Isolationism aren't any less politically affiliated, but just don't happen to fall neatly on either side of the right/left, one dimensional economic/political model (or Democratic/Republican). I'm writing from a USA perspective; I'm not sure if right/left even carries the same meaning elsewhere. Does Wikipedia have some global ruling on political taxonomy? If not, suggest leaving the left/right terminology as a separate topic and within each subject page, and just list National autarky proponents/opponents. [[User:Deepfrieddough|Deepfrieddough]] ([[User talk:Deepfrieddough|talk]]) 22:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== I dispute GDR == |
|||
The GDR, as far as I know, confessed both in theory to trade within the Communist bloc (perhaps especially the USSR), and actually participated in it. Also, whether they saw it as a temporary measure not particularly liked or not, they also traded with the West to get the much-needed money in foreign currencies. (A joke from the time has a proud father of a new-born baby ask eagerly whether his baby has a handicap, at least a slight one. When the nurse says no, the baby is completely healthy, he cries: "But oh dear! After all, everything fully functioning goes off into export!")--[[Special:Contributions/2001:A61:20A3:4901:85BF:87DE:9777:96CD|2001:A61:20A3:4901:85BF:87DE:9777:96CD]] ([[User talk:2001:A61:20A3:4901:85BF:87DE:9777:96CD|talk]]) 13:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Anarchists should not be listed as supporting national autarky == |
|||
Anarchists are opposed to nationalism, so it makes no sense for them to be listed as supporting national autarky. |
|||
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionD6 |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/2001:268:C0C0:64C8:DCD9:1643:DA1F:2|2001:268:C0C0:64C8:DCD9:1643:DA1F:2]] ([[User talk:2001:268:C0C0:64C8:DCD9:1643:DA1F:2|talk]]) 02:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
There really should be a part about the current consensus, virtually no modern economists think Autarky leads to what you would call good outcomes. The only schools of thought that support protectionism are extreme fringe ones. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/205.74.158.114|205.74.158.114]] ([[User talk:205.74.158.114#top|talk]]) 15:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
I have just modified one external link on [[Autarky]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=790201823 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325075139/http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dirwin/Embargo.pdf to http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dirwin/Embargo.pdf |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 07:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
I have just modified one external link on [[Autarky]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=792510578 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014194808/http://westernmind.com/syllabus/syllabus20c/09_mussolini.html to http://www.westernmind.com/syllabus/syllabus20c/09_mussolini.html |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 23:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Prussianism == |
|||
Perhaps there should be a section devoted to Prussianism, as influenced by 17th century Teutonic order, 18th century guilds and cartelization, as implemented and promoted by n 19th century actors such as Baron von Stein, Otto von Bismark, Johannes Fichte, Friedrich List, etc., and as picked up in the 20th century by people such as Spengler and the Strassers. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/24.47.1.165|24.47.1.165]] ([[User talk:24.47.1.165|talk]]) 22:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Affirming the consequent? == |
|||
The article states: "Nazi Germany under economics minister Hjalmar Schacht claimed to strive for self-sufficiency but pursued major international trade, albeit under a different system, to escape the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, satisfy business elites and prepare for genocide." |
|||
Some historians (no references off-hand sorry) claim that the phrase "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" meant expulsion of all Jews from continental Europe until the early stages of the war; thus describing autarchic policies in the 1930s as preparation for genocide seems to presume/assume that they were *designed* for that outcome but only in retrospect [indeed a slight majority of German Jews emigrated between 1933 and 1939, this would also undercut the notion that genocide was planned from the beginning, after all, how are you going to kill people if you let them flee to other countries {which may or may not come under your control}?]).[[User:Historian932|Historian932]] ([[User talk:Historian932|talk]]) 17:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org
|
 |
|
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
I've noticed errors on this page several times over the years - fixed them a few times even.
Now the page is more convoluted and nonsense than it was previously. This is not the only page this is happening on - it appears to be a concerted effort to mislead.
Autarky failed in a pre-globalized world, very conclusively and could only do more harm in the world today.
This is not debatable. I will be redoing most of this page.
My apologies if I'm stepping on toes but I find this particular idea dangerous without context.
- Jakksen Notarky (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
