Niall Ferguson goes to great length to keep from mentioning that socialism had something to do with it.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/5170/why-was-the-20th-century-so-bloody/
Why was the 20th century so bloody?
Previous post: Free market zoning for the web
Next post: False Crisis and Immigration
{ 8 comments }
I think this comming centrury will be even worse. One good thing, at least, is that it is quickly becomming impossible to lie to people about the value of money in the information age. I wouldn’t be supprised to see the central banking system permanently fail and become a closed chapter in history like the plantation system before it.
However, the real problem will be that when they can’t controll people by lying to them about the value of their money, then the only other “solution” is to coerce them more directly. Perhaps door to door tax collection will come back with avengance. Also, I believe that nano technology, and “printer” type technology will bring manufacturing and production to the home. Many statists will see this as an opportunity to leverage patent controlls for unlimited royality streams from the masses who use their “replicators” to print up bowls, parts, devices, whatever – and with it unlimited regulations
Yesterday we were in the industrual revolution, and the battles centered arround controll of labor. Today we are in the information age, the battle centers arround controlling information. Tommorow we will be in the replication age and the battle will center arround controlling how individuals use resources in the home. The current involves lies and deception, the latter will involve personal controll and coercion.
Because of this, I believe that the next frontier of liberty (and the next generation of battles) will be at sea. On land based juristictions, governments can segment off and quarentene. On sea based ones, we can use information technology to trak the enemy and keep optimal distance from coercion and control. On land based ones, they can zone, on sea based ones, we can just move out of the way. On land based ones, all commerce is over government controlled roads, on sea based ones, commerce is open movement. On land based ones, the government knows where everybodys home is, on sea based ones we will all know where the governments movements are.
A more important question might be: “Why was the 19th century so peaceful?” I’m sure if Ferguson wrote such a book, he’d avoid giving any credit to liberalism, capitalism and industrialism.
Perhaps door to door tax collection will come back with avengance.
And hopefully the tradition of tarring and feathering of tax collectors with it!
Mr. Ferguson’s omission of the influence of socialism and collectivism as the major cause of the 20th century’s vast bloodshed is bias and shoddy research. What else was Mao’s Cultural Revolution that murdered 50 or 60 million human beings except the consistent and forceful application of Mao’s version of socialist principles. And back in the 1960s Mao was a darling of many of the trendy western “intellectual” types.
Or how about the tens of millions that Stalin murdered in the name of collectivization, and the possible millions of more that would have been killed if Lenin and Trotsky’s plans for a worldwide armed workers Marxist revolution had succeeded.
Mr. Sanchez makes an excellent point regarding the 19th century, which, of course, Mr. Ferguson ignores: Following the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars, the 19th century was one of comparative widespread peace and an unprecedented increase in the material standard of living of many humans. Not coincidentally, the 19th century saw the greatest adoption of the principles of classical liberalism in history. Meanwhile, the 20th century saw the abandonment or hampering of significant aspects of classical liberal ideology and the implementation of collectivist and interventionist policies.
The review quotes two telling phrases from Ferguson’s book: in referring to 19th century nation builders “…an insatiable appetite for uniformity….” and in reference to 20th century empires “… social homgeneity to which they aspired.” Social homogeneity and uniformity require force – force that only government can muster. The quest for uniformity today seems to come from religions, or sects, seeking to use government to impose their own version of homogeneity. In the meantime, technology continues to facilitate more and more heterogeneity in advanced economies/societies. Conflict is inevitable. Thoreau had the only practical solution, “I ask for at once not no government, but at once less government”. (The quote may not be completely accurate, but it is at least a close paraphrase.)
Thoreau called for at once not no government, “but at once better government.” But better government for Thoreau also meant less government.
It is interesting that the author seems to define socialism without using the word. What else do you call a government imposed uniform society over a 19th century empire?
But more to the point, the author also fails to point out the Communist revolutions of the 20th centry that were far more brutal even than the World Wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
Quite an interesting compendium our young chap has issued forth.
Given his admiration of the Rothschilds, maybe it shouldn’t be any wonder why he chooses not to compare the 19th & 20th Centuries.
Funny, how, after 1913, the 20th C. became very business-like in attaining its well deserved title of: “The bloodiest in mankind’s History”.
Comments on this entry are closed.