Autarky

Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:18 pm

Just wondering what would your stance on autarky be. Would you see it as an aim for a fascist nation? I don't know much about economics, but Autarky to me means self sufficiency of a nation, to it's greatest extent. For example everything that can be produced/manufactured/mined within it, should serve the nation entirely, and imports of such products are no longer required.

Nazi Germany acheived complete autarky and it proved extremely beneficial to them, albeit, coinciding with expansionism.

Fransisco Franco attempted it in Spain and bought the country to it's knees, stagnating the economy.

Mussolini came close, but he still traded a great deal with Germany.

Autarky is a dangerous policy to follow. To become self sufficient is difficult, and economic stability is vital. Evidently, it depends entirely upon your country, to what extent this can be achieved.

Black Brigade Major Joined: 01 May 2009 Posts: 256

The larger the nation and more resources it holds, the more autarkic it can be; so far, the only two nations large enough and with enough resources per capita to be effeciently autarkic have been America and Russia. I'd say it's a great ideal that works better in theory than practice, especially among the multitude of miniature nations.

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:44 pm

Autarky is only possible at all in a nation large and resource-rich enough to contain all the raw materials it could ever need. Beyond that, however, the nation must also have a large enough population to contain the economies of scale necessary to develop the full range of manufactured products, otherwise it will never be able to fully industrialize. The US and Russia meet all those requirements, and so do a number of African nations, although the latter have severe human capital deficiencies and will never industrialize. For the rest of the world it simply isn't practicable, and thus not advisable. Nevertheless the security objectives of autarky can be achieved through other means, such as stockpiling, diversification (Chile for example depends on no country for more than 17% of its export performance), and developing specialized goods for export (Most heavy industry depends on a few select machine tools that Switzerland, and only Switzerland, manufactures).

Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:44 pm

I believe Brazil, Canada, China, and India would also fit the bill.

Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:41 pm

Yes but surely Autarky can be acheived within an empire as well?
Anyway, my question is merely; would you be in favour of a policy of autarky if you had the means to do so? Many of you are American anyway, so this question already applies, seen as you already have the means.

Black Brigade Lieutenant Joined: 21 Sep 2009 Posts: 110

It surely makes things a lot simpler. No complex nets of dependencies to deal with. “It's good to trust others but, not to do so is much better”, quote Il Duce. I have a sort of idea of encouraging autarky among rivaling nations. It is easier to calculate relations with those nations that way, without shifting alliances. Additionally, with less alliances, we are less prone to a Franz Ferdinand type domino effect.

Black Brigade Major Joined: 01 May 2009 Posts: 256

Sol_Invictus wrote:

I believe Brazil, Canada, China, and India would also fit the bill.

Canada might, but it's largely a part of Greater America and I'd view it as such. Brazil has some resources, but not the infrastructure or development to be completely autarkic to my knowledge, and while India and China have some capabilities they have large, burdensome populations that forces them to be reliant on other nations.

I'm not aware of the economic viability of Australia, but I do know you're a net resource exporter. Depending on what resources and food supplies are existant, Australia might also be capable of Autarky. However, only America and Russia currently have the right excess of food supply, resources, and infrastructure and industry to have an autarky.

Commander GB wrote:

Yes but surely Autarky can be acheived within an empire as well?

Depending on the size of the empire, it's possible; the Japanese would have been largely autarkic if they'd won WWII and taken large chunks of Siberia, although I'm not sure if they'd have found an adequate food supply in the East-Asian coast.

Commander GB wrote:

Anyway, my question is merely; would you be in favour of a policy of autarky if you had the means to do so? Many of you are American anyway, so this question already applies, seen as you already have the means.

It depends, under current global conditions I wouldn't be in favor of autarky because many industrial jobs, such as textile works, are poorly paid and allowing those jobs to be done in Indochina and Oceania frees American labor for more productive and higher compensated work, such as Automobile manufacturing or Information Technology. I wouldn't mind it, though, if those jobs were entirely automated.

However, the requirements for an autarky generally provide the capacity for hegemony, as seen between the US and, previously, Russia. Another benefit to competing in world trade is that 1/6 of the world's economy rests on American business, and therefore we can preside over economic hegemony as well as militarist. This is particularly useful if you consider Russia, Europe, and China as potential players in world affairs.

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:19 pm

Sol_Invictus wrote:

I believe Brazil, Canada, China, and India would also fit the bill.

Canada doesn't have enough people. it's already tried import substitution, and failed miserably. China has far too many people, and lacks resource independence as a result. Brazil has the potential, but for a variety of reasons its development is stalled.

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:11 pm

Commander GB wrote:

Yes but surely Autarky can be acheived within an empire as well?

It's generally more costly to maintain, but yes.

Quote:

Anyway, my question is merely; would you be in favour of a policy of autarky if you had the means to do so?

I'm frankly not sure. Autarky does bring with it a modicum of security, but it is economically far suboptimal, and costly to maintain.

Black Brigade Lieutenant Joined: 21 Sep 2009 Posts: 110

Why do countries always have a contiguous landmass? Outside of empires, there has never been a country that has some land in say, central Asia, and another part in South America. While military deployment is easier in the direct vicinity, it is arguable that more diverse territory would benefit autarky greater than local expansionism.

Black Brigade Major Joined: 01 May 2009 Posts: 256

They have contigous landmasses, and notably small ones at that, because until relatively recently sustained travel over any distance was expensive and time consuming, therefore cultural bonds quickly broke down and redeveloped among isolated communities. When you consider rather large continental differences, we weren't even able to establish such empires until a few centuries ago.

However, you'll notice that larger nations, such as America, Australia, or Russia, were the result of expansion during the time sustained cultural contact became possible over larger areas. In order for a nation to naturally exist across non-contigous areas, it has to be as a result of colonial expansion, similar to the Spanish or British Empires, but would require transportation and communication systems developed to the level to retain the integrity of the national bond.

In order to answer your question, the only way a non-contigous nation could be formed today would be to re-integrate former empires, and force assimilate them to minimize the unique cultural factors that've arrived as a result.

Black Brigade Lieutenant Joined: 21 Sep 2009 Posts: 110

I don't mean to get off-topic, so excuse me.

So, Pragmatic, if humans were able to contact each other over large distances with modern technology, and had all traces of national boundaries wiped out, is it possible in your opinion that newly formed nations could have territory scattered all over the world?

Back to autarky...

It thus seems that countries have a limit to their size before they become too culturally diverse for national unity, if countries expand in the regular geographic fashion. One solution to this is that people can "volunteer" to be part of a nation. For example, only true Fascists should be in a Fascist country. All others would either be relocated.

Today internationalism is prevalent. But it is not the same thing as globalism. What I mean is that, people can work together across borders, without uniting the whole world. Thus, we may say, all Swiss Communists raise their hand. Then, they work as if a separate country, by means of international cooperation. If they operate in very rural areas, it is easier for them to establish functional near-sovereignty. In urban areas, cities could be challenged in their claims of independence from the rest of the country so that poses a problem military-wise. Therefore politically this isn't so practical. The economic aspect is what autarky usually refers to, however, and such international cooperations already exist.

Black Brigade Lieutenant Joined: 21 Sep 2009 Posts: 110

I don't mean to get off-topic, so excuse me.

So, Pragmatic, if humans were able to contact each other over large distances with modern technology, and had all traces of national boundaries wiped out, is it possible in your opinion that newly formed nations could have territory scattered all over the world?

Back to autarky...

It thus seems that countries have a limit to their size before they become too culturally diverse for national unity, if countries expand in the regular geographic fashion. One solution to this is that people can "volunteer" to be part of a nation. For example, only true Fascists should be in a Fascist country. All others would either be relocated.

Today internationalism is prevalent. But it is not the same thing as globalism. What I mean is that, people can work together across borders, without uniting the whole world. Thus, we may say, all Swiss Communists raise their hand. Then, they work as if a separate country, by means of international cooperation. If they operate in very rural areas, it is easier for them to establish functional near-sovereignty. In urban areas, cities could be challenged in their claims of independence from the rest of the country so that poses a problem military-wise. Therefore politically this isn't so practical. The economic aspect is what autarky usually refers to, however, and such international cooperations already exist.

Black Brigade Major Joined: 01 May 2009 Posts: 256

zxcv wrote:

So, Pragmatic, if humans were able to contact each other over large distances with modern technology, and had all traces of national boundaries wiped out, is it possible in your opinion that newly formed nations could have territory scattered all over the world?

People are able to contact eachother over vast regions. Anglo-America Covers everything from the Bering Straight to the Florida Keys with barely a dialect change in between; a new plane is expecting to be able to fly from Europe to Australia within an hour and a half.

As it is, America, Australia, and Britain are barely a hairs breath away from eachother culturally. If, for instance, there was forced integration between us, you'd see a common nation form within a generation with hardly a wonder as to the disapperance of any.