Weekly Independent

The Rich World Debt

Around the financial crisis the world went crazy in borrowing money from the private sector and the public organisations. International money borrowing became also particularly famous among countries that struggled to maintain good economic development in times of recession. But this led to a quite bad result now, after the recession is going away. Seems like despite all the efforts by governments and business owners, the ’red ink'around the globe, indicating the countries with severe debts has grown significantly.

It seems like the countries that were hit by the economic crisis and were left alone to cope with difficulties (like the regions in Eastern Europe where even the cheap cookers were hardly sold during the crisis) somehow managed not to increase their national debt. On the other hand, strong states like the UK and France borrowed billions. UK is currently the largest debt owner in the North of Europe and this is understandable – the financial crisis came and went away and we hardly felt it the way Eastern Europeans felt it but at what cost?

During the crisis the UK government made some extremely ’good'deals with international organisations and business plus some additional money borrowing from the Commonwealth. The government aimed to reduce the consequences from the crisis by inputing fresh capital and international finances in the country with the main goal of preserving steady economic development. This somehow worked and the UK citizens remained partially effected by the recession but in future the UK taxpayer would have to think about his state contributions – they might significantly increase.

Same problem remains in France and Germany where the governments and the private businesses borrowed a lot and still somehow that seems to be less than the UK. The British potential of conducting politics might have misled them this time and the taxpayers are the ones that would have to judge that in future.

Can fascism do better today?

To be able to fulfil its goals in shaping and defining the nation, the state requires total obedience and absolute power. As Mussolini argues, without order and hierarchy, there can be neither discipline nor effort from the people, which must receive guidance from the state, which has only one priority: the general interest.[1] This is why the concept of the totalitarian state is so closely linked to fascism. The fascist state can be looked at as a top-to-bottom organisation, in which a single person (e.g. Mussolini in Italy) takes all decisions, for the good of the whole, and then every single unit within the whole is obliged to comply with these decisions. There is no discussion; there is no taking different viewpoints into account. If you submit to the state, then you can be part of the nation. You can only be part of the nation and claim all the glory and greatness as part of yourself if you submit to the authority of the state. You cannot be part of the nation if you reject the authority of the state, since the state is the bearer if everything good and moral. This would mean that you are acting against the general interest and therefore against the nation. This approach can be seen as a tool of fascists to eliminate all their political rivals. There is no room for discussion and suggestions of a better political organisation of society, because as soon as someone tries to put their point across or questions the allocation of such great power to the state, they are branded enemy of the nation.

Sofas for sale are also very interesting!

[1] Benito Mussolini, ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’ (1932), in Adrian Lyttelton (ed.) Italian Fascisms (London: Cape, 1973)