Global History - Assignment Example

The Modern World-System: Midterm Assignment Calling it the “Age of Catastrophe”, Hobsbawm (55) eloquently analyzes twentieth century history from theoutset of World War One in 1914 to Japanese surrender in 1945, officially ending the Second World War. The era of the Great Wars had dramatic implications on the composition and capabilities of the modern institutional state. States centralized in preparation for the Great Wars of the twentieth century and state apparatuses grew to serve the war effort. Following World War One, the Great Slump forced states to deal with the effects of potential economic collapse and actively intervene in the economy. Bureaucratic regulation, mass mobilization and active economic intervention were all integral components of the “Age of Catastrophe”. States mobilized with the outbreak what Hobsbawm described as “mass wars”: the uniquely modern phenomenon of warfare developed in the twentieth century which required the wholesale diversion of economies, labour and national productivity towards the war effort (44). Accordingly, “from 1914 on, wars were unmistakably mass wars…such a level of mass mobilization cannot be maintained except by a modern high-productivity industrialized economy.” (Hobsbawm 44). State apparatuses grew and “mass wars” required governments to mobilize people, resources, and armaments to serve the war effort. Citizens were conscripted to fight, industry was instructed to produce arms, and the government became intimately involved in the establishment of monopolistic war economies (Hobsbawm 44). Control over the means of production also necessitated heightened levels of rational-beauracratic administration, organization and management (Hobsbawm 45-46). The result of intense governmental intervention in the economy to serve the war effort was the establishment of what is now known as the “military-industrial complex” (Hobsbawm 44). Accordingly, the United States benefited disproportionately from the establishment of war economies, exhibiting incredible growth during both wars (Hobsbawm 45). The greater institutional capacity of governments following World War One did not, however, make them immune to the calamity caused by the Great Slump of 1929. The Great Slump – also known as the Great Depression – was arguably “the most traumatic episode in the history of capitalism” (Hobsbawm 94). It began with the New York Stock Exchange Crash on October 29 1929 and nearly resulted in the collapse of the capitalist world economy (Hobsbawm 91). The result was an international economic breakdown which had an impact on nearly every country in the world. Global economic implications of the Slump included a near universal decline in national economic productivity and skyrocketing – as well as increasingly threatening – rates of mass unemployment (Hobsbawm 94). . In the first four years of the Great Slump, world trade fell by an astonishing 60% (Hobsbawm 94). As an example of the decline in economic productivity, automotive production in the United States decreased by 50% between 1929 and 1931 and American imports (as well as exports) fell by approximately 70% in the first three years of the Slump (Hobsbawm 105, 91). Unemployment, during the worst period of this depression (1932-33), hit a high of 23% for the Belgian and British economies respectively, 24% for the Swedes, 27% for the Americans, 32% for the Danish and a shocking 44% for the German economy (Hobsbawm 92-93) The Slump had both economic as well as the political effects and was a catalyst for continued government intervention in the economic and social spheres (Hobsbawm 104). Importantly, each state responded to this global crisis in a different manner. On the left side of the political spectrum, Sweden began social-democratic rule with activist government intervention to offset economic disparities associated with modern capitalism. Accordingly, “the Swedish social-democratic policy after 1932 was a conscious reaction to the failures of the economic orthodoxy” (Hobsbawm 107). The result was the establishment of a modern welfare state (Hobsbawm 284). The United States, under Theodore Roosevelt, also pursued a reformist strategy and responded to the Slump with the New Deal, a series of packages and aimed at giving relief to the poor and unemployed (Hobsbawm 104,105,270). In fact, an important component of the New Deal was the Social Security Act of 1935, a direct response to the economic malaise of the era (Hobsbawm 96). On the right side of the political spectrum, the Nazi Party in Germany benefited from the rise in unemployment and social upheaval caused by the Slump. In fact, mass unemployment in Germany led to increased popularity for the Nazi Party, which was also able to capitalize on German disillusion with the state of affairs following Versailles (reparations, “war-guilt clause”, exorbitant inflation) (Hobsbawm 98). It could be argued, in fact, that Nazi membership grew in tandem with that country’s economic misfortunes (Hobsbawm 94). According to Hobsbawm, fascism, as expressed in Nazi Germany, “mobilized the masses from below” (117), using public theatre (116), racism (118) and the use of nationalism as mobilizing tools (120). Once firmly in power, the Nazi government, through intense bureaucratic regulation and economic mobilization for the aims of the state, managed to alleviate unemployment in Germany between 1993-1938, but at future cost (Hobsbawm 93,104). The Soviet Union, itself another authoritarian political system, grew out of mass discontent associated with the First World War (Hobsbawm 60). Interestingly though, the Soviet Union’s centrist planning economy was largely immune to the Great Slump (Hobsbawm 107). The October Revolution of 1917 – also known as the Bolshevik Revolution – had an enormous impact on Europe’s social, political and economic landscape and accordingly “produced by far the most formidable organized revolutionary movement in modern history” (Hobsbawm 55). The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, viewed themselves as the shepherds of a new international communist order in necessary conflict with the old order, embodied by bourgeois liberal capitalism (Hobsbawm 54-57). A centrist planning economy necessitated activist governmental intervention in all aspects of the state’s social and economic growth. Additionally, an important component of this state’s ability to mobilize was the 600,000 member-strong, centralized and highly disciplined Communist Party (Hobsbawm 64). Because the Soviet Union removed itself from the global capitalist economic world system following the October Revolution, it was effectively immune to the crisis caused by the Slump. In spite of this, bureaucratic regulation and heavy governmental economic intervention were nonetheless used by the Soviets for a further another aim: the establishment of a modern, communist utopia. The Great Wars paved the way for increased governmental intervention in the economic, social, and political realms. Hobsbawm’s “Age of Catastrophe” (55) included both World War One and Two as well as the economic calamity known as the Great Slump. World War One increased the compositions of the modern state with dramatic advances in bureaucratic organization, mass mobilization and state economic intervention. Although each state differed in its response to the Great Slump, these responses were based upon the new capabilities and institutional apparatuses established following the outbreak of conflict in 1914. Works Cited Hobsbawm, Eric. Age of Extremes: The Short History of the Twentieth Century: 1914-1991. London: Abacus, 1994. Read More