Jonathan Kirshner ─ Economic Warfare Begins at Home

Jonathan Kirshner joins the Rhodes Center as the keynote speaker for the "Economic Warfare: What Can World War One Tell us about 21st Century Conflicts?" conference to discuss how economic warfare begins at home. Assessments of the prospects for economic diplomacy typically focus on apparent material capabilities (the levers a state would draw upon), and their potential coercive power (the economic effects of measures introduced and their prospect for bringing about desired international political outcomes). Less attention has been paid to a crucial permissive factor: the robustness of the domestic social economy of a state contemplating the practice of economic warfare. But domestic disaffection is the leaky bucket that can prevent underlying power from being effectively mobilized for political purpose. The experience of Inter-war France well illustrates this. By the late 1920s France had Europe’s most powerful army, much of the world’s gold, and was an active and aggressive practitioner of economic warfare. Within a decade, however, tragically, and even shamefully, France could barely be roused to rise to its own self-defense. The stark difference between 1930 and 1940 is attributable to a radical polarization of French politics and an embrace of “the age of unreason” that paralyzed the country’s foreign policy practice. In the twenty-first century, a similar domestic desiccation is observable in the United States. Any assessment of what type of economic warfare America might contemplate, and the prospects that such measures, especially if costly, could be introduced skillfully and sustained consequentially, must address this likely rate-limiting factor.

Jonathan Kirshner is a Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Boston College, and the Stephen and Barbara Friedman Professor of International Political Economy Emeritus in the Department of Government, Cornell University. His research and teaching interests focus on International Relations (IR), Political Economy (especially macroeconomics and money), and Politics and Film. His work on the international politics of money and finance emphasizes the role of power politics and has also been greatly influenced by the writings of Keynes and economic historians such as Charles Kindleberger.

[myrnajordan]

I’m thrilled this was reuploaded (apparently) since I am a new subscriber, but I do think it is very helpful for all videos to have a recorded on date. Not that the material is outdated, but to be able to put in context of weekly news and commentary.

[victorseborowski]

I don’t know how. This got here. But thank you. Thanks everyone that did stuff for this.

[tomdasilva]

I could listen to this type of thing, all day... Thank you...

[georgesiew]

I think the audience has misunderstood some of the things that Prof. Kirshner has mentioned.

The condition that Prof. Kirshner is talking about with regard to the 1930s France and 2020s America is the loss of social cohesion and to a degree the loss of legitimacy for the society's systems of governance. One of the crucial effects of this is that the political class operates in a permanent state of having no political capital and hence they cannot do anything that costs political capital. Hence the waging of economic warfare is out of the questions because economic warfare is a highly costly endeavor requiring a lot of political capital.

The loss of social cohesion in the American case is caused by many factors. One of the most prominent is the loss of economic benefits to the middle class. Another prominent cause mentioned was the persistence of racial and identity grievances. The causes for a loss of social cohesion are varied in history and much depends on what the pillars of cohesion for the society were. What is more interesting and much more easier to show are not the many causes of this loss of cohesion but the loss of cohesion itself whose effects permeates many aspects of society. Prof. Kirshner gave some examples such as what happened during the primaries in the 2016 election but he has missed some even better examples such as,
1) The lack of any political will to address the fiscal balance for the government.
2) The lack of any political will to address the financial bubbles that have continued to build up in the economic system.
3) The lack of any political will to conduct any sort of industrial restructuring of the country to put it on more sustainable ground with the global economy going forward.

On a side note, I think Prof. Kirshner has left out the bigger picture in his analysis. To really square this with everything else that is going on, the loss of cohesion has to be thought of as part of the much bigger process of the decline of the American Empire.

[conscious_being]

Summary: When some bandits keep all the loot for themselves, the rest of the bandits may not be too eager to join them in the banditry.

[avidavid]

When's episode 2?
This is one of the best explanations for the current reality in America. Amazing parrelel to France, brilliant piece.

[totonow]

Chris Hedges with academic characteristics. Thank you.

[abelayele]

This is a very important and informative, kudos Marc, as usual. My interest is heightened about what was the effects and reactions of the colonial subjects and West & North African immigrants living in France during this period. I am fascinated to find out the civil discord, sectrianism and "malaise "of the French led to further violence and oppression against the immigrants from the colonies? What role did the colonial subjects within and without France during that period???

[davidbarry]

Inequality is unimportant if everyone feels that their lives are improving and they are participating in a worthy mythos, ie. there is some larger plan and goal that they fit into and are contributing towards. In the ABSENCE of such a mythos, or if perceptions of inequality rise to become the dominant issue of the day, it is hard to see how anyone will be working towards a common goal.

[jacobm]

Damn, I always knew inter-war France was a mess but I didn't realize the parallels to the current USA

[thomasjamison]

;The Fall of France in 1940 was decidedly a lucky fluke for the Germans It was a case of sucker punch fortuitously landing on a glass jaw. I doubt the French would have refused to fight a second prolonged version of the first world war, but they never got the chance. I would note too that there is a distinct lack of discussion here relating to the actual economic conflicts between Germany and France at the time. War has always been the fallback position to take to unite a country. The unique success of the Germans in 1940 simply did not allow the French to find the time to readjust to a national war effort. The French certainly had no problem in finding this transition to relative unity as the war gradually turned against the Germans. I would add too that France was not the greatest military power of the age in any real sense. The Soviet Union was far more powerful than France. The US, while dragging its feet on land forces, was busy planning and then building a naval force fare in excess of the naval capabilities of not only France but also Britain.
Just as in the age of Thucydides, the oligarchs of the age are poised to make the great profits of a war, provided they are on the winning side. The common people will always willingly pay in blood if their fundamental values are truly threatened. Beyond that, I would just add that American foreign policy is now largely privatized and beneficial to only a limited number of corporations. ie. the ones generally most easily defined as the 'military industrial complex." American national politics are largely separated from this due to the fact that the American military is all voluntary to one extent, and and largely a commercial endeavor on the remainder of the matter. America is only exercising its traditional habits of screwing banana republics, most often stupidly and certainly not to the benefit of the victims of this favorite American 'racket.'

[george]

1:17:58 "that neo nazi Charles Lindberg"? There are no neo nazis until the fall of nazi Germany as otherwise the modifier neo (new) cannot exist. Whatever Lindberg, who was of Swedish not German ancestry, was, Nazi he was not.

[davidwilkie]

"No new news only new angles", this is what happened to someone.

[Kevin-Schmevin]

What's with all the reuploads lately, every time I get excited thinking it's a new video, but no, just uploading videos multiple times over and over again.

[patxxx]

"Those who can't do, teach". This guy would starve outside the tenure system.

[socialistgamer]

anyone else think Mr kirshner is a bit long winded.