Cinema: The Circus (1928)

You can also follow me on Twitter 

Political Theory: Hobbes

.

You can also follow me on Twitter 

The Bruges Speech

Prime Minister, Rector, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

First, may I thank you for giving me the opportunity to return to Bruges and in very different circumstances from my last visit shortly after the Zeebrugge Ferry disaster, when Belgian courage and the devotion of your doctors and nurses saved so many British lives.

And second, may I say what a pleasure it is to speak at the College of Europe under the distinguished leadership of its Rector [Professor Lukaszewski]. The College plays a vital and increasingly important part in the life of the European Community.

And third, may I also thank you for inviting me to deliver my address in this magnificent hall. What better place to speak of Europe's future than a building which so gloriously recalls the greatness that Europe had already achieved over 600 years ago.

Your city of Bruges has many other historical associations for us in Britain. Geoffrey Chaucer was a frequent visitor here. And the first book to be printed in the English language was produced here in Bruges by William Caxton.

Britain and Europe

Mr. Chairman, you have invited me to speak on the subject of Britain and Europe. Perhaps I should congratulate you on your courage. If you believe some of the things said and written about my views on Europe, it must seem rather like inviting Genghis Khan to speak on the virtues of peaceful coexistence!

I want to start by disposing of some myths about my country, Britain, and its relationship with Europe and to do that, I must say something about the identity of Europe itself.

Europe is not the creation of the Treaty of Rome. Nor is the European idea the property of any group or institution.

We British are as much heirs to the legacy of European culture as any other nation. Our links to the rest of Europe, the continent of Europe, have been the dominant factor in our history.

For three hundred years, we were part of the Roman Empire and our maps still trace the straight lines of the roads the Romans built. Our ancestors - Celts, Saxons, Danes - came from the Continent. Our nation was - in that favourite Community word - "restructured" under the Norman and Angevin rule in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

This year, we celebrate the three hundredth anniversary of the glorious revolution in which the British crown passed to Prince William of Orange and Queen Mary.

Visit the great churches and cathedrals of Britain, read our literature and listen to our language: all bear witness to the cultural riches which we have drawn from Europe and other Europeans from us.

We in Britain are rightly proud of the way in which, since Magna Carta in the year 1215, we have pioneered and developed representative institutions to stand as bastions of freedom. And proud too of the way in which for centuries Britain was a home for people from the rest of Europe who sought sanctuary from tyranny.

But we know that without the European legacy of political ideas we could not have achieved as much as we did. From classical and mediaeval thought we have borrowed that concept of the rule of law which marks out a civilised society from barbarism.

And on that idea of Christendom, to which the Rector referred - Christendom for long synonymous with Europe - with its recognition of the unique and spiritual nature of the individual, on that idea, we still base our belief in personal liberty and other human rights [...]

Full Text and Video

You can also follow me on Twitter 

Claude Oscar Monet

You can also follow me on Twitter 

The Interwar Years: La Joie de Vivre

You can also follow me on Twitter 

Berlin, 13th August 1961

You can also follow me on Twitter 

Through The Woods

Completing the Coursera course ...
    

You can also follow me on Twitter

Cold War: Kitchen Debate

Khrushchev: It’s clear to me that the construction workers didn’t manage to finish their work and the exhibit still is not put in order ... this is what America is capable of, and how long has she existed? 300 years? 150 years of independence and this is her level. We haven’t quite reached 42 years, and in another 7 years, we’ll be at the level of America, and after that we’ll go farther. As we pass you by, we’ll wave "hi" to you, and then if you want, we’ll stop and say, "please come along behind us" ... If you want to live under capitalism, go ahead, that’s your question, an internal matter, it doesn’t concern us. We can feel sorry for you, but really, you wouldn’t understand. We’ve already seen how you understand things.

Nixon: It’s a very effective exhibit, and it’s one that will cause a great deal of interest. I might say that this morning I, very early in the morning, went down to visit a market, where the farmers from various outskirts of the city bring in their items to sell. I can only say that there was a great deal of interest among these people, who were workers and farmers, etc ... I would imagine that the exhibition from that standpoint would, therefore, be a considerable success. As far as Mr Khrushchev’s comments just now, they are in the tradition we learned to expect from him of speaking extemporaneously and frankly whenever he has an opportunity. I can only say that if this competition which you have described so effectively, in which you plan to outstrip us, particularly in the production of consumer goods ... If this competition is to do the best for both of our peoples and for people everywhere, there must be a free exchange of ideas. There are some instances where you may be ahead of us--for example in the development of the thrust of your rockets for the investigation of outer space. There may be some instances, for example, color television, where we’re ahead of you. But in order for both of us benefit ...
     

If you want to know more about this, click here: (1) Kitchen Debate - (2) Transcript

You can also follow me on Twitter

Taking Different Paths

As you probably know, from last decades of eighteen hundreds to the first quarter of the twentieth century world economies were led by free trade and gold standard, in which social and economic progress settled. Meanwhile, imperialism and rivalries didn´t stop. As a result, the world was doomed to world war (thirty years of warfare, actually) and countries started to adapt their resources to the new context. Certainly, was the aftermath of the first world war what explains the end of the victorian boom, an era characterized by the economic interdependence all over the planet, and also by the idea that goods were manufactured in order to consume them wherever you live and work. One example of those was fordism, that spread the assembly line and mass production everywhere.

Why, finally, main economies left the previous model of economic globalization? Maybe, at this point we must study the post-war conditions. In this way, we can read the following in Worlds Together, Worlds Apart: 'Its causes went back to the Great War, which had left European nations in deep debt as they struggled to rebuild their economies and pay off war debts. To restore stability, Europeans borrowed heavily from the United States. When wobbly governments and small investors defaulted on their loans, the U.S. Federal Reserve reacted by raising interest rates. Starting in central Europe, financial institutions began to collapse. As banks fell, other lenders scrambled to call in their loans. Companies, governments, and private borrowers were soon floating in a sea of debt. The panic then spread to the world’s stock markets, which led to the Wall Street crash of 1929, which spurred more bank closures' (p. 719).

The situation was untenable and the United States enforced penalties to import and export assets, signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and also taking the first step towards protectionism. In response, trading partners cut links and international relations started to break down. We can also read some words in the textbook concerning that worry: 'After the United States enacted protective tariffs, other governments abandoned free trade in favor of protectionism. Manufacturers cut back production, laid off millions of workers, and often went out of business' (p.720). In Europe, actually, the crisis started when an austrian bank, the Kredit-Anstalt Bank, collapsed. In consequence, diplomacy tried to arrange the issue. It failed, anyway. One example to solve it was the Paris Conference of 1931.

Patterns of Recovery

Liberal economies were, hence, put in question, claiming that the market place hadn't a self-equilibrating structure. Here, we must quote figures like John Maynard Keynes, who despite believing in the free market, also argued that it should be controlled by the state. Therefore, following these ideas, countries like the United States applied its policies to stimulate the economy. In this particular case, it was called New Deal. However, there were other kind of responses. Sometimes diametrically opposite. These replications relied on popular support to carry out its strategies, which it could be divided in hard-core command economies and medium-core command economies. In this way, the state became the representative of the common will. Let me analyze them briefly.

Collectivized Agriculture - Soviet Propaganda: 'Let's Achieve a Victorious Harvest'

On the one hand, the most relavant example of hard-core command economy was the Soviet Union, country in which the collective way gained immense importance. What did collective way mean? Roughly, collectivist policies tried to accumulate resources in the hands of the state. That's to say, everything you produce must be property of those who run the country's destiny. Private property and other individual rights were largely beaten in the name of the state. This sort of planned economy was very effective to mobilize people and technology, especially in war time. Nonetheless, it demanded much sacrificies (of all types) and the need of produce new tools caused the population, in the end, remain exhausted. In reality, things were not so easy: 'The realities behind the images (like in the poster above) of smiling farmers were low productivity, enormous waste and often broken-down machinery' (p. 724).

On the other hand, medium-core command economies like Japan and Germany did not take over the organization of production. The state was above everything, that's true, but it left some freedom for the commercial activity (always for the general interest), which was supervised but the state officials. The aim was to create loyalty and capacity to consume, but needing reliance on peripheries to satisfy their needs (great resources), so they kept the persistance in the way of empire because of primary staples for industrial recovery. Although Japan broke down, Germany, the Third Reich, was the best example of this kind of policy. Both of them were great militarized and led societies.

In conclusion, this financial crisis took countries to make decisions like to leave the gold standard and retreat into protectionism. Liberal democracies relied on the state as a key agent to stimulate economy. However, others, like the Soviet Union and Germany pushed for policies in which peoples support, expansionism and popular will played crucial roles, not only in the recovery but also in the nationalist and popular machinery.

You can also follow me on Twitter

Dmitri Shostakovich: Leningrad

You can also follow me on Twitter

Westward Expansion

You can also follow me on Twitter

Darwin's Voyage

You can also follow me on Twitter

The Dutch East India Company

You can also follow me on Twitter 

A History of the World since 1300

You can also follow me on Twitter