The Governator is Wrong
In the Republican National convention, Arnold Schwarzenegger said that terrorism is worse than Socialism. Empirically, he is wrong. Between the Nazis, the USSR, and China, Socialism has been responsbible for hundreds of millions of murders. The number of murders committed by terrorists doesn't even come anywhere near that.
I tend to like Schwarzenneger. In spite of choosing Warren Buffet as his economic adviser, I think Schwarzennegger is generally Austro-libertarian. Schwarzennegger's apparently been to an Austrian conference on economics. He's also influenced by Milton Friedman (unfortunately, he's also felt Friedman's influence in education). One of the few Republicans (outside of Ron Paul) who can talk about freedom without being a hypocrite.
I certainly don't agree with Schwarzennegger on the military, and it was painful to listen to him on this topic. More painful, however, was that someone who generally is a supporter of the free market, and who bettered his lot through completely voluntary free-market interactions (Schwarzennegger), gave his support to someone who is not a supporter of the free market, and bettered his lot by the political means (G.W. Bush).
On a side-note, I thought the "speech" by G.W. Bush's daughters was embarassing. There are some things that you're almost embarassed to listen to in the privacy of your own room. That's one of them. One of the particularly inappropriate statements was something along the lines of "Our grandmother thinks that Sex in the City is something married people do in the city, but never talk about." It was immediately obvious that Mrs. Bush Sr. was greatly displeased by that statement (the camera briefly focused on her). Whoever approved such an unmodest speech must have been off his or her rocker.
Comments (15)
David,
I really don't see much Ausro-libertarian legislation coming out of California these days.
Raymond Sabat put out an interesting column on Schwarzennegger earlier this year (Link)
Published: August 31, 2004 11:45 PM
You are both right!
If you look at terrorism from the narrow angle of an organization, Al-Qaeda, that emerged in Afghanistan in the 80s and perpetrated bombings around the world (Africa, NY, Bali, Madrid...), then you can say that the number of casualties is far lower than those of socialism.
But if you add the word islamic to terrorism and understand that their goal is to establish a worldwide theocracy based on their litteral interpretation of the book of Mohammed, then you'll see that this is not a new movement.
They are pursuing the same religious war that the Arabic and Turkish sultans and califes fought for centuries. I don't have an exact body count, but it seems to me that the struggle of Islam in Africa and parts of Asia was and still is quite bloody.
The fact that islamic militants use terrorism instead of war is just a change of military tactics. They fight for the same ideology as their ancestors for over 1000 years. That is much longer than communism/socialism, while the ideology appears as oppressive and murderous.
Therefore, it seems that Arnold has a better knowledge of history. No wonder! It was the Austrians who preserved Europe from Islam by defeating the Turks at the doors of Vienna in 1683!
Published: September 1, 2004 3:46 AM
How come, if the Nazis were "socialists," did the right wing in France become the Vichy government, while the left went underground and fought?
Why, after the war, did the RNC recruit Eastern European Fascists, and Nazi-sympathizers, to fight the Communists from America?
Is it not, in fact, because, like Franco, Salazar and Mussolini, Hitler was a Fascist?
Don't worry, you are duping lots of people with that "Hitler was a lefty" garbage.
Published: September 1, 2004 7:49 AM
In this past century alone, hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered under socialism. The murders committed by terrorists don't even begin to approach this numerically. And I'd be willing to bet that if you went back to the very beginning of terrorism, back a thousand years, and count all of the murders cummulatively, it wouldn't even come close to that. Certainly, there has never been a period of history when people were murdered more rapidly than this past century under socialism.
Hitler was a socialist. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't even bothered to look up what "Nazi" stands for. Nazi is a shorthand, not the full name. "National Socialism". What Naziism really was, was State-corporatism, which is socialism. A different implementation of socialism than Communism, but socialism none-the-less. The difference between the "right" and the "left" is not a matter of socialism: both are socialism. Hitler was a "right socialist", while Stalin was a "left socialist".
http://tinyurl.com/6c3mp
http://tinyurl.com/65oyw
Published: September 1, 2004 8:52 AM
I believe Mises referred to Nazism as "socialism on the German model" and Fascism as "corporatism" or "socialism on the Italian model."
Published: September 1, 2004 9:19 AM
Fascism = National Socialism / Who has been duped?
Left Wing and Right Wing is a deceptive way of looking at the political spectrum. Totalitarian is totalitarian no matter what the label is. Communist and fascist employ nearly the same methods to gain and keep control of economies and people; socialism. Neocons and liberals are no different. A more accurate political model would be a circle in which communism and fascism on both ends would actually bend and meet in the middle with anarchy directly on the opposite side of this circle.
There is no practical difference between systems that lead to totalitarianism through government coersion and controls, no matter what the label.
The label, Right Wing Nazi, given to constitutional conservatives (not neocons) is meant to discredit and dupe not accurately describe a position or belief.
The confusion is deliberate.
Traditionally, conservatives have been in favor of less government and more individual responsibility along the the lines of the US Constitution. These folks have been labled far right or Nazis: right wing equals Nazi, right? Why?
It is a matter of conditioning. If you continually tell the public that constituional conservatives are radical or equivalent to Nazis, many will become confused and convinced that such is true. The neocons can then come in and claim the role of conservative, but rational and moderate, not "radical like those Nazis on the far right."
There is no practical difference between the socialist liberals and the neocons in our system, this is no accident. The neocons are socialists and are in reality much more Nazi like than constitutional conservatives. Confusing isn't it. Well, that's the point.
This puts the following quote into better perspective.
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and
policies, one perhaps of the Right, and one of the Left, is a foolish
idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the
American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without
leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. It should be able
to replace it every four years if necessary, by the other party,
which...will still pursue with new vigor, approximately the same basic
policies", Prof Carroll Quigley, Author of "Tragedy and Hope", CFR
member, Socialist Party member, confessed establishment "insider",
mentor of Bill Clinton while at Georgetown Univ.
Published: September 1, 2004 9:28 AM
Chad,
I think your analysis is spot on. In France, our mainstream parties have become more and more identical just as in the USA, except what you call "neocons" we call "(neo)liberals" and what you call "liberals" we call "socialists".
A significant difference with the USA is that in the first round of the 2002 presidential elections, realising the interchangeability (and emptiness) of the two major parties, some 30% of voters voted for either neo-Nazi or Trotskist candidates : the wrong response to the right diagnosis!
(my own response is invariably the same : go fishing on election day).
Published: September 1, 2004 2:47 PM
I found it quite telling that Schwarzenegger mentioned the free market in a positive way and later when talking about "The best in people" mentioned firefighters, the police, teachers and nurses. All those professions are being payed by the state. Businessmen were not mentioned among his examples of "The best in people". One could draw the conclusion that only working in service of the state brings out "The best in people".
Published: September 1, 2004 6:04 PM
Sir Humphrey Appleby (played by Nigel Hawthorne) in the British TV series "Yes Minister" points out that while private business uses profits as a metric for success, the government cannot. Therefore, the civil service measures success according to 1. how much you increase your department's funding, and 2. how much you increase your department's workforce.
By that metric, America's state workers are certainly being very successful.
Published: September 1, 2004 10:15 PM
Chad, Lawrence,
it is the same situation here in Germany. There is not much of a difference between the current coalition of social democrats (SPD) and greens and the coalition of christian democrats and (classical) 'liberals' of former chancellor Helmut Kohl.
Proof for this is that the current administration (SPD and greens) is called being neoliberal.
Socialism is becoming ubiquitous.
best,
Dirk
Published: September 2, 2004 5:11 AM
Calling Nazi Germany "socialist" is anachronistic.
In the working-class movement of the nineteenth century, "socialism" didn't equate to government control of the economy. The primary meaning of socialism was a society in which workers themselves actually controlled production, and received the full product of their labor. The socialist movement included not only state socialists and anarco-collectivists, but individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker (and me) who believed a totally free market was the best means for labor to receive its full product.
Even for the state socialist wing of the movement, state control of the economy was only a means to this end. Engels, perhaps the most statist of the state socialists of the nineteenth century, argued that "socialism" was not defined by state intervention in the economy. Socialism was defined by the real political and economic rule of the working class, in which case state intervention might be one instrument of their power. But in the absence of working class power, state intervention would be integrated into the capitalist system in order to stabilize and subsidize the profits of capital. This, he said, was the purpose of Bismarck's misnamed "Junker socialism": the capitalist class acting through its executive committee, the state, to manage the economy in its own interests.
It was the triumph of the statists, under the SDs, Fabians, and Leninists, that caused socialism to be identified with state ownership and control. Mises' ahistorical treatment of "socialism" as a government-owned and government-planned economy imposes this later dumbed-down understanding of socialism on the nineteenth century.
Published: September 4, 2004 2:38 PM
Apparently radical Islamists are not the only ones who nostalgically look back through the centuries to the time of the Crusades or the Wars of Religion. Thus, for example, Stephane Erler:
>>
Ah yes, it was the Hapsburgs who saved Europe--for what? Well, empire, colonial warfare, and World War I. Thank God for such vigorous self-defense by the godly rulers of the Christian West against the infidel. Keep on rocking in the free world.
Published: September 5, 2004 1:43 PM
Ah, the joys of trying to work out different weblog comment systems. Here is the quote from Stephane that I refer to above:
"Therefore, it seems that Arnold has a better knowledge of history. No wonder! It was the Austrians who preserved Europe from Islam by defeating the Turks at the doors of Vienna in 1683!"
Published: September 5, 2004 1:44 PM
The entire Republican convention was one of deciet and nonsense, but perhaps they have the method of being elected these days.
Many Americans are frightened people. Also, by electing Kerry the United States will essentially be admitting it was wrong. Are the American people on balance prepared to show courage and rational egoism or is fear and egotism to rule?
If a president that operates on instinct, "gut" and belief as opposed to facts, and does not use his mind and boasts about not reading anything [other than the Bible], and once he makes a decision never varies, then those who are fearful and egotistical will vote for the current Administration.
If people put a man "they can trust to walk their dog" or "want to have a beer with" based on these emotions, in office, then they deserve what they get.
I fear that reason and objective reality, on balance are not valued by voters today.
Published: September 5, 2004 10:55 PM
Rad Geek wrote : "Apparently radical Islamists are not the only ones who nostalgically look back through the centuries to the time of the Crusades or the Wars of Religion. Thus, for example, Stephane Erler:"...
Well. I am not nostalgical! Austria had the flaws you mentioned. By then, the USA didn't yet exist and democracy as we know it didn't exist except in the minds of a few european idealists.
We are better off today and are not fighting a religion war. The islamic militants are. We, the West, are defending values of freedom and tolerance that are universal.
On a lighter side, without Vienna's victory in 1683, you would never eat 'croissants'. They were invented by austrian bakers to celebrate the defeat of the then islamist turks!
Published: September 6, 2004 9:14 AM