The Idea of Liberty is Western
The idea of liberty, wrote Ludwig von Mises, is and has always been peculiar to the West. What separates East and West is the fact that the peoples of the East never conceived the idea of liberty. The East lacked the primordial thing, the idea of freedom from the state. The East never raised the banner of freedom, it never tried to stress the rights of the individual against the power of the rulers. And, consequently, it never established the legal framework that would protect the private citizens' wealth against confiscation on the part of the tyrants. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (65)
F L. Light
1
By the Misesian name of Freedom, throw
The government aside and faster go.
2
By the Misesian name of Freedom, cast
The functionaries down and function fast.
3
By the Misesian name of Freedom, smite
The bureaus further if you’d fare by light.
4
By the Misesian name of sanity
Men correspond commensurately.
5
By the Misesian name of sanity
Respond to measurements commensurately.
©2006 F L Light
Published: June 23, 2006 7:47 AM
Tibor
For a contrary opinion on liberty being a Western value, see Amartya Sen, "Human Rights and Asian Values," at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/sen.htm reprinted in Tibor R. Machan, ed., Business Ethics in the Global Market (Hoover Institution Press, 1999).
Published: June 23, 2006 9:05 AM
CD
It may be interesting to note that the reason for the development of the combination of Liberty, Equality, Reason, Truth and Innovation was the universal militia, and the battle tactics that they employed, and the social order necessary to employ them effectively The Greeks did not invent liberty as much as liberty is the natural consequence of employing such a form of social organization with the military technology available to them at that time. Even then, Spartans, Athenians and Macedonians all arrived at slightly different methods of organizating a division of labor. This social order is a superior method of warfare, a superior method of economic organization, and a superior method for the development of technology. Too bad persia was so nearby. Too bad persian ideas made it into both europe and asia.
I am not sure it is so much a difference between Asian and European methods, although European methods are probably better for the accumulation of scientific knowledge over time. It is that Zoroastrian ideas are so bad for both cultures. The west always looks forward, the east always backward, but the middle looks into mysticism, and that is a terrible thing for everyone.
Published: June 23, 2006 9:28 AM
william Marina
As Murray Rothbard noted in the first chapter of his History of Economic Thought, the Taoists were the first great libertarian
individualists. Today in China, despite the Legalism of the ruling Communist Party, Taoism is alive and well.
Slavery was the dominant institution in Classical Civilization, as noted by a number of scholars such as Carroll Quigley, which was not the case in China, or in other parts of the East.
Slavery co-existed in Greece and Rome, just as it did in the early United States, along with a great deal of verbiage about Liberty and Natural Rights for all. It took a bloody Civil War to change that
situation.
Published: June 23, 2006 9:41 AM
Roger M
The great orientalist, Bernard Lewis, wrote in a one of his histories of the Middle East that when Europeans, primarily the Dutch, began using the term "liberty" on a regular basis, the Arabs, Turks, Iranians and even the Japanese didn't know how to translate it, because none of them had a similar concept in their culture. For the most part, they translated it with the equivalent of "Licentiousness."
Published: June 23, 2006 9:54 AM
Reactionary
What a bunch of multicult nonsense. The Asian ethos has always been and remains collectivist, and generally brutal and exploitative as well.
Next, even Rothbard will be too "Western" for this site.
Published: June 23, 2006 10:23 AM
TCA
I'm convinced more than ever that individual liberty is peculiar to the West because Christianity is largely a Western phenomonon. Among the great religions of the worlkd, only Christianity emphasizes the importance of the individual as opposed to the collective. Jesus came and was sacrificed to grant each individual freedom if that individual chooses to follow Him.
The principal of non-aggression is completely analogous to the Golden Rule. The principle of self-ownership is completetly analogous to God-given free will. Thus, the two major cornerstones of liberalism have important Christian principles at their root.
Published: June 23, 2006 11:10 AM
iceberg
TCA,
I know you're not supposed to get in arguments of a religious nature, but since you put it out there:
Among the great religions of the worlkd, only Christianity emphasizes the importance of the individual as opposed to the collective. Jesus came and was sacrificed to grant each individual freedom if that individual chooses to follow Him.
Don't those two sentences directly contradict each other? Jesus, you assert is sacrificed for the sake of the many- is that not the basis of collectivism, that humanity is homogenous and individual lives expendable for the collective good?
Don't blame me for not understanding, I'm Jewish! :)
Published: June 23, 2006 11:31 AM
Reactionary
iceberg,
Jesus was God incarnate, so you're really asking the wrong question. The basic theology is that the sins of mankind can only be atoned by the sacrifice of one who is blameless. In the Old Testament, God selected the members of a particular tribe as his chosen people and decreed that they sacrifice unblemished lambs to maintain their communion with Him. These practices served as a metaphor for fallen man's separation from the perfect God and the redemption through the shedding of innocent blood.
In the New Testament, God extended his plan of salvation to all mankind the only way it could be done: by sacrificing his only Son to bear the sins of all mankind in their stead.
Now, while this is a "blanket" mechanism for salvation (it's a little inapt to call it "collectivist"), Christianity is nonetheless liberal because it treats all men as capable of individual communion with God and therefore worthy of themselves before God and, by extension, before their earthly rulers (the principle of equality before the law). This is the principal reason liberty took root in the West and foundered virtually everywhere else.
As the West has become increasingly anti-Christian and secular, so it has become less free.
Published: June 23, 2006 11:55 AM
Jim B
Iceberg - According to the books of Genesis and John: Jesus (God as man) willingly sacrified himself (an individual decision) to rescue the race of men from God's necessary judgement, thereby allowing man to reconnect with God and goodness on the earth - and someday be transformed back to his non-sinful state (death is a consequence of sin) and live in the presence of God. Nature apparently was changed because of man's sin.
Man yielded the earth to the devil when he went outside of God's plan (You shall not die...You shall become as God, knowing good and evil). In Matthew it also refers to the kingdoms of the earth being given to Satan (Satan tempts Jesus and says he'll give these kingdoms to him because they were given to him - Jesus refuses as he would not take the crown without the cross).
Published: June 23, 2006 12:00 PM
iceberg
How is it possible for God to sacrifice himself? All sacrifice requires the tradeoff of one value for another.
Thus saying that God "had to" sacrifice is to deny Gods infiniteness; that he is limited in resources as we humans are.
If you say that he is not finite in 'obtaining' (read: creating) his resources, than any good in question is in super abundance, and not subject to the purposes of valuation.
Published: June 23, 2006 12:09 PM
Reactionary
iceberg,
That is along the lines of one of the atheistic arguments against God: if God has infinite power, then God can create a stone He can't lift. Therefore, God is a logical impossibility and cannot exist. But we're not really debating the existence of God. We're debating whether the idea of liberty is, as von Mises asserts, a primarily if not uniquely Western phenomenon.
The history of the West is the history, to a great extent, of Christianity, and there is a natural complementariness between liberty and Christianity that is simply not present elsewhere.
Published: June 23, 2006 12:28 PM
Jim B
Iceberg - God limited himself intentionally, that's a crucial part of the message.
Pretty sure your concept of God is bigger than the conceptual box you're trying to build. You can't really have a God you can fully understand - else you are making yourself out to be God, with all the moral implications that follow.
That's not saying trash your mind -- just that man has moral and conceptual limits. Admitting man has limits is like admitting gravity is real and staying away from the cliff - man's limits are a fact that many men would like to forget, being unwilling to admit their own propensity to sin. God lived up to his standard. Honestly don't think any man has lived up to even his own internal standard, much less God's.
Published: June 23, 2006 12:38 PM
TCA
Iceberg,
Paul says in 2 Corintians 5:21 that "God made him (Jesus) who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
Jesus sacrificed his Godhood as well as his life so that we "might become the righteousness of God".
While God is potentially all-powerful, there are things he cannot (or has chosen not to) do. He cannot force us to follow him without destroying the gift of free will which is what makes us truly individuals. Without free will, each of us is part of the collective.
This recognitions of the importance of the individual is what gives birth to the entire concept of natural rights.
Published: June 23, 2006 12:52 PM
Jim B
TCA and Iceberg - interesting that the discussion has centered on what power can accomplish -- last I checked power cannot ever accomplish a logical inconsistency. That falls in line remarkably with the attempt by man to accomplish through the power of the state what is impossible.
Published: June 23, 2006 12:56 PM
Vince Daliessio
TCA asked;
"Don't those two sentences directly contradict each other? Jesus, you assert is sacrificed for the sake of the many- is that not the basis of collectivism, that humanity is homogenous and individual lives expendable for the collective good?"
Leaving aside all religious and supernatural explanations, the Jewish world of the time had a big obstacle for people to overcome - the concept of original sin. For many marginal Jews and non-Jews of that time, this was a great impediment to accepting a future orientation. Having Jesus represent a once-and-forever paschal sacrifice on behalf of all who followed his teaching is really a brilliant approach to removing this obstacle.
We now return to our regularly scheduled religious argument...
Published: June 23, 2006 12:58 PM
Roderick T. Long
I think there are clearly libertarian ideas to be found in ancient Chinese Confucianism; see my argument here:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/17_3/17_3_3.pdf
Published: June 23, 2006 1:47 PM
Otto Kerner
"Among the great religions of the worlkd, only Christianity emphasizes the importance of the individual as opposed to the collective." I'll wager that, not only is this false, the opposite is likely to be true, that all great religions emphasise the relationship of the individual to God/true reality/etc. There is, for example, no concept of collective salvation in Buddhism.
The question, I think, is why those non-Christian societies did not develop full-fledged liberal tendencies in the secular sphere.
Published: June 23, 2006 3:03 PM
Reactionary
Otto,
They didn't because Christianity is unique in its emphasis of the individual and natural law. There are some sprinklings of liberal thought here and there, but Buddhism is perfectly accomodative of complete loyalty to the state. By contrast, Christianity teaches that we are answerable to a higher authority than the state, which itself exists only by the grace of God, and only insofar as its rulers follow God's commandments.
Judaism and Islam both call for their followers to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth, and so they remain fervently collectivist. (Zionist/Dispensationalist Christians who preach the same thing err greatly.)
Published: June 23, 2006 3:30 PM
Roger M
Otto:"There is, for example, no concept of collective salvation in Buddhism."
Pure Buddhism, not the popular form, has no concept of salvation.
A lot of the questions here could be settled by reading books on cultural economics. Formerly Protestant countries are the most individualistic in the world, followed by Catholic. African and Eastern cultures are the most communalistic. Most people in cultural economics attribute religion as at least part of the cause, if not the main cause.
Published: June 23, 2006 4:16 PM
Wild Pegasus
As the West has become increasingly anti-Christian and secular, so it has become less free.
Oh yeah, liberty is in much worse shape now than in, say, 1450. LOL.
If Christianity is so freedom-oriented, why did it take breaking the power of the Catholic Church, and the areligious Enlightenment for liberty to flourish in the West? Christianity had more than a thousand years to demonstrate its incredible commitment to the individual, and it profoundly failed.
As for the ancient Westerners, they thought of liberty as "the right to participate in governance" more than "the right to be free of the state's constraints". Participation is a liberty of a kind, but not the libertarian liberty we cherish.
- Josh
Published: June 23, 2006 4:55 PM
Brett Celinski
"If Christianity is so freedom-oriented, why did it take breaking the power of the Catholic Church, and the areligious Enlightenment for liberty to flourish in the West? Christianity had more than a thousand years to demonstrate its incredible commitment to the individual, and it profoundly failed."
Yet, this was in the pre-capitalistic era. The Church had much of a hand in developing and supporting the free market system as it emerged.
"As for the ancient Westerners, they thought of liberty as "the right to participate in governance" more than "the right to be free of the state's constraints". Participation is a liberty of a kind, but not the libertarian liberty we cherish."
Only in terms of democracy. Liberty means political freedom, and there is as much a 'negative freedom' (what newspeak) tradition in the West as participatory idealist Platonism.
Published: June 23, 2006 5:10 PM
Brett Celinski
"A lot of the questions here could be settled by reading books on cultural economics. Formerly Protestant countries are the most individualistic in the world, followed by Catholic."
I think this is pretty dubious. There's a lot of historical evidence to suggest that the Catholic nations had a huge hand in promoting liberty, while the historical machinations of Protestantism and Puritanism have led to socialism. Indeed, there is some measure of pro-liberty ideas and pro-statist ideas in both strands of Christianity.
What really shows, though, is the presence of faith that was needed to advance liberty in the first place at all. This is coming from an agnostic.
Published: June 23, 2006 5:30 PM
Pete Canning
Prof. Long does bring up one important point; Taoism is more closely related to "Green Anarchy" or some other nonsense than to liberty.
Rothbard's praise of Lao Tzu and such is likely silly attempts to broaden the appeal of liberty and to bring another famous philosopher into the fold. Those who have read much of the Daodejing, would know it is a horrific work of anti capitalist moralizing.
As to Confucianism the values encouraged are far from libertarian, though it might be seen as more pro "progress" than the ideas of Taoism, it is in favor of a collectivist form. There is no wonder it was so easily adopted as the official state ideology.
As to Christianity, or the "Greeks" their contribution to liberty is highly overrated. The reason liberty is a western idea is simple. Western individuals are the only great thinkers who have ever advocated such. Attempting to isolate a particular cultural reason is quite difficult.
Published: June 23, 2006 6:32 PM
Keith Preston
Some of the things I'm going to say here will probably provoke a lot of rock-throwing in my direction.
I generally find the "Westerners + Christians=Liberty" thesis to be an absurdity almost on the level of the historical materialism of the Marxists. I don't know how many tracts I've seen over the years promoting the idea of "Western supremacy" because of (pick one)democracy, capitalism, technology, Christianity, the Greco-Romans, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the white race or some combination of these.
First of all, "liberty" and "freedom" are defined in different ways by different people in different contexts. You could probably round up 100 Americans at random and get dozens of definitions of "liberty". If you gathered 1000 people from, say, 10-20 different countries you would get even more definitions. I understand what most of the people who frequent this site mean by "liberty" and I agree with Roger that it's probably traceable to the Dutch circa the 1500s. I suspect "liberty" arose there largely for economic and geographical reasons rather than cultural or religious ones. Amsterdam was a major commercial center, given its location as a key port city, and therefore attracted traders from all over the world. The Dutch had no choice but to develop a regime of "liberty" to make this arrangement work. The Dutch were the first European nation to adopt religious tolerance and, even today, they are known as one of the most "liberal" nations (an obvious example is their policy towards drugs). However, liberty in this context certainly did not take root in all of Europe. Mostly, it spread to England and later the nations of the Anglosphere like America. Liberty probably took root there for the same reasons it did in Holland, i.e., geographical and economic considerations. If we look around the world we see that major commercial or port centers tend to be more "liberal", all things considered, than more sparsely populated landlocked regions. Think of New Orleans, Las Vegas, San Francisco and Hong Kong.
The vibrant intellectual culture of ancient Greece can be traced to its decentralized institutional structures. The Sophists noticed from their travels that different communities maintained different value systems and concluded that values were relative and that "might makes right". It was Socrates' efforts at counterargument against the Sophists that largely began Greek intellectual culture. As for the power and wealth of ancient Rome, this was mostly rooted in their ability at pillaging and plundering. Why were they so good at it? Who knows. Why did the Crips manage to get the upper hand over many of their rivals in South Central L.A.?
When Christianity overtook pagan Rome, the West underwent a major period of regression. Indeed, throughout much of the Middle Ages, Europe was way behind Islamic, Jewish or Chinese culture in terms of its cultural and economic development. The West began to catch up and then surpass other civilizations with the rise of the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment intellectual culture. From where did these originate? Probably from the fact that no one institution was ever able to achieve a monopoly of power during the Christian era, not the Church, Pope, the kings, feudal lords, the Holy Roman Emperor or anyone else. This situation allowed for the growth of the market economy and the development of intellectual and legal constructs like "rights" which were rooted in the settlements that emerged from power struggles among contending groups (Magna Carta, Peace of Augsburg, Treaty of Westphalia, etc.) Even at that, the concept of "liberty" the way it is used on this site is more of an Anglo-American idea than the product of continental Europe. Indeed, this probably explains why the Communist Parties of Europe had more influence in those nations than the ones in England and America.
I see no evidence that either German Protestantism or the Catholicism of the Italians, Spanish, French or Portuguese is any less "collectivist" than the cultures of Asia, Africa, the Near East or the indigenous cultures of the Americas. Speaking of the Dutch Republic, during that time the Spanish Inquisition declared the entire population of the Netherlands to be heretics and sentenced them to death en masse.
It is also important to remember that the growth of a superior level of wealth in the West over the past centuries is as much rooted in European (and later,American) imperialism and the looting and plundering of other continents as it is in any particular type of political, economic or cultural system (shades of Rome!)Also, much of the concept of "rights" that we see in many Western traditions has more to do with the corporate rights that Burke was so fond of ("rights" for sovereign kings, lords, churches, cities, families, etc) than the libertarian, individualistic concept of "rights". You can find ideas of jurisdictional, institutional or group "rights" of this type in many different cultural systems (the Indian caste system or the Asian concept of "filial piety", for instance). It's also important to remember that the lethal ideologies of the 20th century arose in and were exported from the West. It was also Westerners who were the first to develop and use atomic weapons. And this wasn't just a feature of modern secularism, either. The same kinds of slaughter occurred during the religious wars of the seventeenth century where firearms were used for the first time.
None of this means that I am anti-Western. Far from it. I have nothing but contempt for the leftoids who regard history as a white, Christian male conspiracy against everyone else, which is a mirror image of Nazi racial theory that interprets history as a Jewish conspiracy against civilization. Westerners may not be the root of all that is good but we're not the root of all evil, either.
You can find traditions comparable with those of Western "liberalism" in some indigenous cultures of Africa (see "Africa Betrayed" by George Ayittey). Christianity has indeed contributed to anti-state thought (particularly Augustine and the Anabaptists) but comparable ideas are found in Eastern traditions as well (such as the Confucian or Taoist traditions mentioned in some of the above posts). You can also find antipathy to power in some Polynesian and native North American traditions (see "People Without Government" by Harold Barclay).
As the Good Book says, "All have sinned."
Published: June 23, 2006 9:21 PM
jermaine
Keith Preston: Shape it up a little and provide some footnotes and you have yourself a pretty damn good article!
Published: June 23, 2006 10:07 PM
TGGP
I think a good proxy for freedom in different areas is whether people prefer to leave their homes and move there. That's one reason why I disregard the extremist rhetoric that the U.S/Europe is now fascist/totalitarian (Orwell foresaw that abuse of language years ago), as the feet of immigrants reveal their preference and the assertions themselves reveal freedom. Go ahead and say it's horrible, unjustifiable and so on, but the actual self-described adherents of those ideologies like Mussolini would be shocked that you tried to associate them with what we live under.
Regarding the imperialism of old, while I'm not going to attempt to justify it, I think that it is often the perverse result of greater freedom (relative to the conquered). Liberty tends to be conducive to economic growth and scientific achievement. While a serious commitment to liberty for all might make leaders averse to all that glorious pillaging, granting some to their subjects can enhance their ability to engage in it.
I don't think Asia is doomed to such a lack of freedom. The "stationary bandits" have begun to realize that by letting their hosts gain strength there is more lifeblood for them to suck. Nevertheless, there is a long way for them to go and culture/tradition is part of the reason (although the existing examples of freedom make it easier to draw inspiration from than when the idea was novel). I think it is fairly safe to associate freedom with the West relative to the East (which is certainly not to say the former is entirely characterized by it and the latter not at all), or we would be discussing on an Eastern blog why the West didn't develop a tradition of freedom. Stereotypes arise because people find them to generally be true, but they aren't laws of nature.
Published: June 23, 2006 10:11 PM
Peter
I think a good proxy for freedom in different areas is whether people prefer to leave their homes and move there. That's one reason why I disregard the extremist rhetoric that the U.S/Europe is now fascist/totalitarian (Orwell foresaw that abuse of language years ago), as the feet of immigrants reveal their preference and the assertions themselves reveal freedom.
Just because every place else is worse doesn't mean the US is not a facist dictatorship. You're the kind of person who would say "oh, the third level is hell is a wonderful place! Just look at all the people from the fourth level clambering all over themselves to get in!"
Published: June 23, 2006 11:28 PM
M E Hoffer
"I think a good proxy for freedom in different areas is whether people prefer to leave their homes and move there. That's one reason why I disregard the extremist rhetoric that the U.S/Europe is now fascist/totalitarian (Orwell foresaw that abuse of language years ago), as the feet of immigrants reveal their preference and the assertions themselves reveal freedom."
Peter, No Q, I'm sure the inmates at Sing Sing would be more than willing to emigrate to Allenwood...
Published: June 24, 2006 12:48 AM
Keith Preston
TGGP:
"I think a good proxy for freedom in different areas is whether people prefer to leave their homes and move there. That's one reason why I disregard the extremist rhetoric that the U.S/Europe is now fascist/totalitarian (Orwell foresaw that abuse of language years ago), as the feet of immigrants reveal their preference and the assertions themselves reveal freedom."
Most immigration to the West is economic in nature. There are comparatively speaking very high levels of aggregate wealth in these regions, for a variety of historical and geographical reasons, although much of that is debt generated and can't be maintained for eternity. There are some political refugees who come to the West as well, but that's not the norm. In fact, as we've seen from the Muslim populations of Europe and many Latin American immigrants to the US, many of these are adamant about maintaining the cultural norms of their culture of origin while absorbing the economic benefits of America and Europe.
"...the actual self-described adherents of those ideologies like Mussolini would be shocked that you tried to associate them with what we live under."
Peter:
"Just because every place else is worse doesn't mean the US is not a facist dictatorship. You're the kind of person who would say "oh, the third level is hell is a wonderful place! Just look at all the people from the fourth level clambering all over themselves to get in!"
I actually think the US regime at present can be properly characterized as "fascist". Given that this is indeed considered an extremist position, it's necessary to explain why this is the case. Most people reflexively identify "fascism" with Hitler, but while the Nazi movement certainly borrowed from Italian fascism, it also borrowed from Bolshevism as well. The point behind Nazism was to create a type of "national socialism" as opposed to the international kind offered by the Bolshies. Also, it's important to remember that Hitler was an extremist even by "fascist" standards. We might say Hitler was to "fascism" what Pol Pot was to communism.
As for the actual nature of historic fascism, here's what Humberto Fontovo (an anti-Castro Cuban) has to say:
"Luigi Barzini mentions a fascinating datum in O America! that few seemed to have noticed. After living in New York for two years he returned to Italy in 1926. This wasn't unusual, he writes. Indeed, one-third to one-half of the Italian immigrants to the US in that period returned to Italy...
...Hey, wasn't that Il Duce's Italy?! Fascist Italy? No system so oppressed and brutalized its citizens, right?
...Yet tens of thousands of Italians returned voluntarily. to Fascist Italy. Thousands of Spaniards returned to Franco's "Fascist" Spain after their Civil War."
I think the fascist nature of the US at present is summarized pretty well in these comments by Anthony Gregory:
"I am no expert on this, but I imagine it depends largely on the definition of fascism we use.
Fascism in the economic sense—corporate socialism, neo-mercantilism, state capitalism—does seem to fit the US political economy pretty well. About 20 years ago, Bob Higgs called the system "participatory fascism" since there was still an element of democratic participation and not as much racial or other social persecution of the type associated with the Nazis.
The element of political violence is one that many lefties I know say prevents the US from being properly called fascist. They think that rightwing militia groups are more fascist than the government, because they imagine fascism being a sort of grassroots political violent movement that culminates in, or is propped up by, the fascist state.
I don't know if this emphasis is correct. And after all, while not to the same extent as under Hitler or Mussolini, the state does use violence against individuals to terrify them, as do "private" groups allied with the state or factions within the state.
As for another distinction people make between America and a truly fascist country—that of the level of persecution of minorities. Well, the fedgov of these 50 states has succeeded in far more violence and persecution against certain minorities than some people, even libertarians, fully acknowledge. The drug war alone, which has put hundreds of thousands of peaceful people in cages to be abused, raped, socially engineered, and churned out as greater burdens and threats to society than when they went in, proves the point. It doesn't matter what one thinks of drugs. The dehumanization of drug users in our society has been going on for so long that even some libertarians shy away from the full implications, thinking instead that it's some sort of side issue. But it would have horrified the good guys of the Old Right, or the better Founding Fathers. We're talking about caging and beating innocent people here because of a peaceful lifestyle, behavioral or other difference. And with the current unjust laws, the "privatization" of the prison system threatens to further make this a fascist aspect of American political culture. Already we have private contractors who lobby for more drug laws. Ick.
There have been high profile politicians who have called for murdering people for using drugs, for the state to shoot them as traitors or poison their drugs. This might not be genocidal, but it is closer than some may realize. When the state begins locking up too many people to support and there are calls ro resort to prison labor, we'll see the move toward full blown fascist persecution accelerate. After all, the 13th amendment didn't make slavery of prisoners illegal, even ones who shouldn't be prisoners. (Although I believe strongly in restitution, that has nothing to do with what the state is doing.)
Yes, other people are persecuted. But drug users make up the biggest demographic of the prison population, and caging people is one of the worst forms of oppression.
Add this to the constant imperialism and aggressive wars, the supreme leader with his power to detain, spy on, or execute anyone at his whim, the hordes of state partisans and American supremacists who shrug off the Haditha massacre as if it was less than cold-blooded, murderous terror, the corporatization of markets whereby risk is socialized and profit privatized, and I can't wince anymore when someone warns against a fascist America. What would a fascist America look like, if not what we're seeing? More government thugs in the streets loading innocent people in prison? We already have more innocent people in prison than any other country. More state-sponsored murder? In foreign policy, the US is hard to beat. And although America is certainly not the worst place to live for the average chum by a long shot, neither was fascist Italy when compared to hellholes the world over. Fascism is, after all, more economically efficient than communism, allowing the parasitic state to be more aggressive in certain ways but also allowing people to eat better than the Soviet model does.
I used to worry about a leftwing social democracy replacing American liberty. Hah. Canada is starting to look free compared to the American nationalist socialism on the march. And the worst of it is, when Bush is done, Americans might go and replace him with someone worse. I'm starting to think that Higgs's note about the participatory nature of American fascism isn't any reason to be the least bit reassured."
Published: June 24, 2006 8:46 AM
RogerM
Keith::"I generally find the "Westerners + Christians=Liberty" thesis to be an absurdity..."
You should read Jonathan Israel's books on the Dutch Republic, and Jan de Vries's. Both are considered by historians to be the best on the subject of the Dutch. Also, read "Culture Matters" by "Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress," eidted by Lawrence E. Harrison, Samuel P. Huntington. These guys are dedicated Christians, though they don't reveal their religious backgrounds. You'll find a convergence among then on the importance of religion.
Here's their basic thesis: Liberty is determined by the institutions a society creates, i.e., the form of government (democracy vs. authoritarian), the court system, the police, the law makers, etc. What determines the type and character of institutions? The values of the society. What determines values? For the most part religion. But they use religion in a generalized sense: You can be an atheist and still be religious, because your values and identity are determined by your atheism.
Published: June 24, 2006 9:08 AM
TGGP
Keith, most immigrants aren't political philosophers. They come seeking a better life and freedom tends to provide that, whether or not they realize it. You talk about Italians and Spaniards returning to their home countries, where they still had families. To me, net immigration is the thing to look at (although, as should be obvious, it is only a relative rather than absolute indicator).
In America, you can say what ever you want about Il Duce Bush, and say it from a loudspeaker if you so desire. Your kids won't be taught he's always right in public school, at least in part because the teachers' union supports the political opposition that wouldn't be permitted to exist under a totalitarian state, and even if they did you could homeschool them.
The drug laws are extremely harmful, but I can't say they remind me of fascism. If the population consisted entirely of Mormons who wouldn't even touch something with caffeine in it and there enough good jobs that kids didn't see dealing as their best opportunity, the amount of people in jail for drugs would go down sharply, but it wouldn't make drug laws any more sensible, nor would an outbreak of violence and resulting increase in incarceration invalidate laws against that. Of course, I don't consider persecution of minorities or offensive war to be necessary (or sufficient) to establishing fascism, nor do I lump in lifestyle minorities with ethnic/racial minorities.
Published: June 24, 2006 9:27 AM
Keith Preston
Roger,
I don't seriously disagree with anything you say, but how is any of that relevant to the points I was making?
Of course, "culture matters". Try mixing groups of Orthodox Jews, Shiite fundamentalists, and Christian rapturists together and you'll see that in an instant.
"Liberty is determined by the institutions a society creates, i.e., the form of government (democracy vs. authoritarian), the court system, the police, the law makers, etc. What determines the type and character of institutions? The values of the society."
Duh? And the point is? Democracy can be just as abusive as any other kind state as thinkers as far back as Plato and Aristotle running through Aquinas and up to Mill and Tocqueville recognized. It's only been in the last century or so that the "Democratic Infallibility" dogma has emerged. And what does any of this have to do with Western or Christian history? Throughout most of the history of Christian Europe, religious persecution of the type we see in the Islamic world today was the norm and it continued well into the Englightenment era, the colonial American period and beyond. Thomas Jefferson, the supposed model of the Enlightenment man, advocated policies towards homosexuals not unlike those favored by Saudi imans. John Locke, supposedly the great liberal, favored persecution of Catholics and unbelievers. Many of the more salient features of the modern West, like procedural rights for the accused and the general separation of church and state, arose only as a backlash against prior institutional arrangements like the star chamber and the Inquisition.
My point is that Westerners or Christians possess no more special claims to enlightenment than anyone else. To the degree that Westerners have advanced beyond the ills that still plague some other regions, this has been the result of centuries of struggle, with the partial victories that have been achieved only having occurred rather recently (for example, the requirement that the police inform the accused of his rights did not come about until the 1960s), and with a contemporary trend towards regression. Sorry, but we're not as wonderful as we tend to think we are.
Published: June 24, 2006 10:02 AM
Keith Preston
"Keith, most immigrants aren't political philosophers. They come seeking a better life and freedom tends to provide that, whether or not they realize it."
That was my point. Most immigrants are seeking economic self-advancement, which is all well and good, rather than fleeing political persecution. The latter might have been true in some instances, like refugees from Central American during the 1980s war or the "boat people" from Vietnam or Cambodia.
"In America, you can say what ever you want about Il Duce Bush, and say it from a loudspeaker if you so desire. Your kids won't be taught he's always right in public school, at least in part because the teachers' union supports the political opposition that wouldn't be permitted to exist under a totalitarian state, and even if they did you could homeschool them."
The present regime has not been able to silence its opposition or completely absorb civil society. The First Amendment is one of the few features of the traditional constitutional system that continues to survive, largely because of the power of the mass media and the entertainment industries as organized political interest groups.
Beside that, you're missing my point. As I said, ultra-totalitarians like Hitler and Stalin were extremist even by the standards of authoritarian regimes. Most of these never succeed in wiping out all opposition to themselves or totally eradicating all of civil society. Note what Myles Kantor says about the military dictatorship of Franco:
"Skimming Nigel Hamilton's new biography of Bill Clinton, I came across this comment on Clinton's trip to Spain in 1970 (p. 222):
"...Franco's archconservative Spain had been as awful and as stifling as the Soviet system Bill Clinton had encountered in Moscow and Prague: stultifyingly male chauvinist, repressive, cynical, and at the same time politically fundamentalist, with no tolerance for divergence or diversity."
--"...Franco never managed to take over the totality of Spanish culture" (Carlos Fuentes, The Buried Mirror: Reflections on Spain and the New World, p. 338).
--"A year before [in 1968], there had been big student demonstrations in Madrid that demanded liberalization of the regime...More than a million workers had participated in strikes that year..." (Peter Pierson, The History of Spain, p. 167).
--"That the Spanish regime was obviously authoritarian, not totalitarian, is first of all simply an inescapable fact, for it did not attempt to control the entire economy and all social, cultural, and religious institutions" (Stanley G. Payne, The Franco Regime: 1936-1975, p. 626).
Big student demonstrations weren't an option in Moscow and Prague--especially after the Soviets "normalized" the latter with tanks in 1968--much less a million striking workers. Here's Payne's take on the equivalency: "Hamilton is way over the top, to put it mildly."
"Of course, I don't consider persecution of minorities or offensive war to be necessary (or sufficient) to establishing fascism..."
Well, what would be necessary?
"Of course, I don't consider persecution of minorities or offensive war to be necessary (or sufficient) to establishing fascism, nor do I lump in lifestyle minorities with ethnic/racial minorities."
Why not? You could make the case that race and ethnicity (or other immutable conditions like gender or disability) are natural conditions and not a matter of individual action. But what about political and religious minorities? People certainly choose their religious or political affiliations? What if the US regime dealt with Libertarians, Greens, Mormons, born-again Christians, Muslims, homosexuals or vegetarians the same way they deal with drug users and a few other similar groups (like prostitutes)? Civil libertarians from the ACLU to the NRA would be screaming bloody murder!
Before you dismiss views of the US drug war as fascist, I suggest you read "Drug Warriors and Their Prey: From Police Power to Police State" by Richard Lawrence Miller. Someone who has not reviewed the evidence presented in this study is not qualified to refute its claims.
Published: June 24, 2006 10:27 AM
RogerM
Keith:"My point is that Westerners or Christians possess no more special claims to enlightenment than anyone else."
That's where you're wrong and the sources I listed demonstrate it. They agree that religious tolerance, for example, began first in the Dutch Republic and it happened because of the Protestant beliefs of the people. The Dutch were the first people in history to serious limit the power of the nobility and the state, and they did so because of their Protestant beliefs. They incorporated a lot of Aristotle, but so did the Catholics, but Catholic countries wouldn't allow religious freedom for centuries after the Dutch. Protestants provided the rationale for overthrowing tyrant kings, based on Protestant theology. You're ignoring a world of the best research and thinking available on the subject.
"It is also important to remember that the growth of a superior level of wealth in the West over the past centuries is as much rooted in European (and later,American) imperialism..."
Every book in the library of this web site disagrees with you on that.
Published: June 24, 2006 10:52 AM
Keith Preston
"...religious tolerance, for example, began first in the Dutch Republic..."
Agreed.
"The Dutch were the first people in history to serious limit the power of the nobility and the state, and they did so because of their Protestant beliefs."
Disagreed. I stand by my view that Dutch religious tolerance was rooted in economic and geographical considerations, not religious ones. The Dutch were also the first to ease up on the persecution of drug users and prostitutes of the type that characterizes most other states. I suppose this is rooted in their Christian values as well.
"Catholic countries wouldn't allow religious freedom for centuries after the Dutch."
Agreed.
"Protestants provided the rationale for overthrowing tyrant kings, based on Protestant theology."
That's a very naive view of Protestant history. More often, the Protestants desired tyrannical rulers of their own as evidenced by Calvin's police state, Luther's call for religious persection and anti-Semitic porgroms and his siding with the tyrannical German nobility (whom he sought as allies against the Italian Church)against the exploited peasants, and the religious wars instigated by the followers of Zwingli against the Swiss cantons that remained Catholic (where Zwingli "met his Maker", so to speak). What about that great exemplar of Protestant liberty and toleration, Cromwell? What of those notorious libertines, the Puritans?
"Every book in the library of this web site disagrees with you on that."
Well, every book in the library of the Institute for Historical Review disagrees with my generally orthodox view of how the Holocaust went down. And I suppose the wealth of the Romans was derived from their superior cultural refinement and Hellenic intellectual culture? If you want to understand the effects of imperialism on other societies, this piece by Wendy McElroy is a good place to start:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy55.html
Published: June 24, 2006 12:25 PM
Lady Liberty
Liberty has all but left the West.
Published: June 24, 2006 2:05 PM
TGGP
I've never heard the term "ultra-totalitarian" before. I thought that usually authoritarian was considered different from totalitarian, and then there weren't any more categories beyond that.
Regarding the present regime, its' opposition isn't silent in the slightest, and without the ability to silence them all the regime can do is blather right back. I suppose you could say that there's no difference between the two major parties, but that's just because the distance between two things seems smaller the farther away you are. The bulk of America is in the middle and apathetic.
I don't think Franco is a great example of fascism. He was really a monarchist who wound up in charge because the Falangist leaders that started the war got killed, and when he stopped listening so much to their ilk the "Spanish miracle" was possible.
I'm glad that there aren't any fascist supporters here right now to explain to us that fascism "in theory" could work just fine and we can't judge by the few imperfect examples yada yada yada deviation from blah blah blah, but at any rate I think we can use the example of regimes that we'll consider fascist "enough" to critique fascism and its policies without using them as a measurestick for establishing whether or not other regimes are fascist. For example, I would say that New Deal America was more not actually fascist and even a bit shy of authoritarianism but it was moreso than under Coolidge, even though there were some gains in freedom like the repeal of prohibition. To me, fascism is a system and something like the legality of drugs is not integral to the system. As for why I distinguish between lifestyle and other minorities, there are never trials for the latter ("How do you plead on the charge of Dutchery?") because it's not really a crime under anyone's standards. Group membership strikes me as in between. Born again Christianity wouldn't even fall under that. Laws against membership in a political group seem the most threatening to liberty, although also easiest to tie into a charge of conspiracy against the people or whatnot. I'm not sure how keen the citizens of Rothbardia would be on the set up of a local branch of the International Communist Revolutionaries.
Roman law often gets disparaged here relative to common law, but I don't think the ideals of freedom were absent from the Republic (although Kevin might not think it says much, the founding fathers looked at it favorably relative to Athenian democracy). The codification and open publication of the laws was done as a check on authority. Even under the early Caesars the Apostle Paul spoke up about his rights as a Roman citizens when he was arrested. The Empire fell because of the growth of government, but I'd say it was the restraints on it that had sent it on its rise.
Interesting you mention Cromwell with regards to religious toleration, since he's the one who allowed Jews back in, but just as that isn't enough to test for fascism, it's not enough to make him not a dictator.
Published: June 24, 2006 3:31 PM
Keith Preston
"I've never heard the term "ultra-totalitarian" before. I thought that usually authoritarian was considered different from totalitarian, and then there weren't any more categories beyond that."
If you can't distinguish between Hungary circa 1986 and Cambodia circa 1976, then you're not very well-informed concerning the history and nature of totalitarianism.
"Roman law often gets disparaged here relative to common law, but I don't think the ideals of freedom were absent from the Republic"
The Roman Republic lasted approximately 200 years before falling into executive dictatorship and overt militarism, precisely the same path the US is now pursuing.
"As for why I distinguish between lifestyle and other minorities, there are never trials for the latter ("How do you plead on the charge of Dutchery?") because it's not really a crime under anyone's standards."
Check these out:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007057
http://www.white-history.com/hwr64ii.htm
http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/nraceogjodepolitik.asp
http://bethuneinstitute.org/documents/naziconnection.html
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/related/naziracialhygiene.pdf
http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/law02.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/media/rlmiller.htm
Published: June 24, 2006 5:20 PM
RogerM
Keith: "More often, the Protestants desired tyrannical rulers of their own as evidenced by Calvin's police state, Luther's call for religious persection and anti-Semitic pogroms and his siding with the tyrannical German nobility..."
Luther and Calvin represented the early Reformation and were very conservative on the issue of liberty. Later Protestants didn't follow them slavelishly, however. The first writers who proposed the overthrow of tyrant kings were Huguenot Protestants and relatives of William of Orange, also a Protestant who led the rebellion against Spain.
The Catholic countries of Europe adopted the Protestant principles of liberty only after the Enlightenment in which they abandoned religion altogether. Enlightenment philosophers stripped the religious anchor of liberty upon which the Protestants had built. Asian nations didn't begin to adopt those principles until after WWII.
If you examine the value that different cultures place on individualism vs. collectiveness and power vs. equality, categories developed by Hofstede, you'll find that formerly Protestant nations place a high value on individualism and equality before the law. On the other extreme, Asians place the highest value on collective action and power. (The power/equality category has to do with accepting unequal treatment between rulers and subject.) Catholic countries are in the middle, which is why in the Catholic countries of Latin America, liberty is still scarce.
"And I suppose the wealth of the Romans was derived from their superior cultural refinement and Hellenic intellectual culture?"
Before the Dutch Republic, the most common methods for attaining wealth were warfare, ransom, and accepting bribes as a government official. Dutch Protestants made all of those methods illegal. From that point on, you had to make money in business. Great Britain and the US never made money via imperialism. It was actually an economic drag.
If imperialism could create lasting wealth and sustained development, Spain would be the world's superpower today. They stole billions in gold and silver from American natives, but within a few decades were broke and powerless. In fact, the paradox that Spain had so much gold and became poor, while the Dutch had nothing and became rich (the Dutch ended up with all of Spain's gold) is what got people thinking about macro economics in the first place.
Published: June 24, 2006 7:06 PM
Brett Celinski
I still feel one 'church' developed liberty the most. It is historically impossible.
And: America is moving in a fascist direction. What will matter to make it actually fascist: If it enforces the infrastructure 'successfully' on its domestic 'enemies'.
Published: June 24, 2006 10:41 PM
Brett Celinski
Sorry. I still do not feel that only one church developed the most. I think there needs to be a spell checker like that animated paperclip... except it could be an animated Hazlitt or something...
Published: June 24, 2006 10:42 PM
Keith Preston
This question of "American Gone Fascist" is an important one that I don't want to treat in too shallow a manner.
Some leftists will use the term "fascist" to describe anything outside their particular sect. To Stalinists, for example, social democrats are "social fascists", anarcho-socialists are "anarcho-fascists", Trotskyites are "Trotskyite fascists". Some equate fascism and capitalism as the same thing.
Some Old Rightists (like Lawrence Dennis and John T. Flynn) characterized the New Deal as "fascist", which was only partially true. There are parallels between the New Deal and Mussolini's corporatism, but there are also borrowings from Fabianism and European social democracy in the US welfare state. The social democratic regimes are Europe often have larger welfare states than America, yet few people regard them as "fascist".
Some, mostly leftists, regard US imperialism in the post-WW2 era as fascist, which I disagree with. US imperialism in the late 20th century was just a continuation of the old European colonialisms that were no longer feasible for those nations following their decimation in WW2.
The US simply picked up where the Europeans left off in Asia, the Middle East, Africa along with its traditional sphere of imperial influence in Latin America.
Where fascism starts to enter the American picture follows the US loss in Vietnam and the domestic upheavals of the 60s. Those events generated a fascist backlash, if you will. The core elements of this were the support for the death squad states of Central America during the 80s (as part of the Reagan Doctrine), and the creation of a domestic police state under the guise of the war on drugs during the same period. This was followed by the program of the "New World Order" that came into being following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the later expansion of this into a program of overt world conquest under the Bush Doctrine and the "global democratic revolution". Domestically, the war on drugs was expanded into broader wars on crime, guns, gangs, terrorism, all sorts of things resulting in the creation of a massive police state and prison-industrial complex.
US fascism has its roots in the Nixon era, began to be partially implemented during the Reagan/GHW Bush eras, was fully consolidated during the Clinton era, and is being taken to another level with GWB. This parallels what happened to Italy under Mussolini quite well. This is what a libertarian scholar of fascism named David Ramsay Steele has to say about the issue:
"Apart from its ardent nationalism and pro-war foreign policy, the Fascist program was a mixture of radical left, moderate left, democratic, and liberal measures, and for more than a year the new movement was not notably more violent than other socialist groupings...
"The democratic and liberal elements in Fascist preaching rapidly diminished and in 1922 Mussolini declared that 'The world is turning to the right.'"
"The youngest prime minister in Italian history, Mussolini was an adroit and indefatigable fixer, a formidable wheeler and dealer in a constitutional monarchy which did not become an outright and permanent dictatorship until December 1925, and EVEN THEN RETAINED ELEMENTS OF UNSTABLE PLURALISM requiring fancy footwork. He became world-renowned as a political miracle worker. Mussolini made the trains run on time, closed down the Mafia, drained the Pontine marshes, and solved the tricky Roman Question, finally settling the political status of the Pope"
"Mussolini was showered with accolades from sundry quarters. Winston Churchill called him "the greatest living legislator." Cole Porter gave him a terrific plug in a hit song. Sigmund Freud sent him an autographed copy of one of his books, inscribed to "the Hero of Culture." (10) The more taciturn Stalin supplied Mussolini with the plans of the May Day parades in Red Square, to help him polish up his Fascist pageants."
"It can happen here!" -Sinclair Lewis
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"-Thomas Jefferson
Published: June 25, 2006 9:05 AM
Keith Preston
Roger: "Luther and Calvin represented the early Reformation and were very conservative on the issue of liberty. Later Protestants didn't follow them slavelishly, however. The first writers who proposed the overthrow of tyrant kings were Huguenot Protestants and relatives of William of Orange, also a Protestant who led the rebellion against Spain."
Agreed. The later Radical Reformation included tendencies like the Anabaptists whose ideas on religious liberty were forerunners to the modern conception of separation of church and state.
"The Catholic countries of Europe adopted the Protestant principles of liberty only after the Enlightenment in which they abandoned religion altogether."
Agreed.
"Enlightenment philosophers stripped the religious anchor of liberty upon which the Protestants had built."
Any kind of fanatical ideology welded together with the state is dangerous. You have the example of the Jacobins putting up the "Goddess of Reason" during the French Revolution. You have the religious persecution of the Bolshies and the "Museum of Atheism" they maintained. You've got the present day French government banning the wearing of Muslim headscarves and Christian crucifixes in state schools. Political power is lethal, where in the hands of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, pagans, rationalists or atheists.
"If you examine the value that different cultures place on individualism vs. collectiveness and power vs. equality, categories developed by Hofstede, you'll find that formerly Protestant nations place a high value on individualism and equality before the law. On the other extreme, Asians place the highest value on collective action and power. (The power/equality category has to do with accepting unequal treatment between rulers and subject.) Catholic countries are in the middle, which is why in the Catholic countries of Latin America, liberty is still scarce."
You can argue that from any number of directions. Rothbard regarded Catholicism as more conducive to liberty because of its higher regard for reason as opposed to the Protestant emphasis on faith. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn went so far as to blame Luther and Protestantism for the Nazis. Not surprisingly, K-L was a very conservative Catholic. Many Jews blame their historic labeling as "Christ-killers" by the Christians for the Holocaust. Some Christians will blame Enlightenment rationalism for Nazism and Communism.
I don't put much stock in any of these kinds of arguments. Liberty exists to the degree that power is restrained. And the restraint of power is usually rooted in historical accidents like geographical considerations or the inability of any one warring faction to gain the upper hand and completely repress the others. That's about all there is to it.
"Great Britain and the US never made money via imperialism. It was actually an economic drag.
If imperialism could create lasting wealth and sustained development, Spain would be the world's superpower today. They stole billions in gold and silver from American natives, but within a few decades were broke and powerless. In fact, the paradox that Spain had so much gold and became poor, while the Dutch had nothing and became rich (the Dutch ended up with all of Spain's gold) is what got people thinking about macro economics in the first place."
Imperialism works the same way as a domestic command economy or, for that matter, an extravagant or criminal individual lifestyle. The short-term rewards can be tremendous. The long-term consequences rather severe.
Sea-faring or port nations tend to become wealthy because they tend to become centers of trade and commerce. Even if they lack much in the way of natural resources, they paper to accummulate a lot of paper or money wealth. This explains the success of Holland, England, America, Hong Kong and Singapore. Spain was already taking a downturn by the time it had fully consolidated its power in South and Central America. Spain, Britain, France, all of these accummulated enormous wealth through imperialism and squandered it through war and extravagance. America will go the same way eventually.
Published: June 25, 2006 9:34 AM
Keith Preston
More on American Fascism:
If we want to look for parallels between the present situation and outright Nazism, the most important question are those of military aggression and a relentless war against a domestic scapegoat. For a discussion of the former, see:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles3/Jayne_Hitler-Bush.htm">http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles3/Jayne_Hitler-Bush.htm">http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles3/Jayne_Hitler-Bush.htm
For a discussion of the latter see:
http://www.serendipity.li/wod/rlmiller.htm
As I said before, there are serious difference as well, such as the inability of the regime to silence its critics or absorb civil society, but as noted in the Steele article, that was true of the Mussoline regime as well. And the present US corporate-state more closely resembles that of Mussoline than that of a genuinely free economy.
Here's some commentary by Larry Gambone that describes the situation fairly well:
DEMOCRACY
There is much braying about "democracy" in the neocon press. The reality is however, that this ideology is founded upon the idea of restricting democracy and not increasing it. Samuel Huntington's statement in 1976 to the Trilateral Commission, that there was "too much democracy" and that it needed to be reigned in to allow the elites a freer hand, can be seen as a seminal neocon concept of "democracy". In practice the neocons limit democracy in the following ways: a. through centralization of governmental power at the federal level b. concentration of local government into larger units c. curbing the power of juries d. replacement of common law with statute law e. weakening of constitutional rights through "special legislation" (i.e. drug laws("search and seizure") anti-terrorism laws etc. f. making participation in elections too expensive for anyone other than elite g. restricting political choice to two parties with the same ideology and marginalizing alternative viewpoints. h. centralizing and controlling mass media. i. Continual propaganda against democratic reforms like proportionality, recall, referendum and decentralization. The Neocon concept of democracy is the unrestricted rule of contending elite factions. Everything beyond the interests of the elite is marginalized. Their concept of democracy is Jacobin in the sense that state power is unlimited, unrestricted by tradition, common law, or constitutional limits. The state may do anything the elite wishes.
THE ECONOMY
The two pinnacles of neo-con economics are corporate welfare and neomercantilism. 1. Corporate welfare takes the form of: a. military spending b. police-prison-industrial complex expenditure c. vote-buying pork d. gifts, loans and other forms of government expenditure for special interests allied to the neocons. 2. Neomercantilism: a. agricultural subsidies b. NAFTA regulations such as Chapter 11 and guarantees of "intellectual property rights" c. selective use of regulations to crush competition (i.e. soft wood lumber dispute, attempts to exclude hemp products, exclusion of manufactured goods as "not up to standard" . d. use of subversion and military to open and control markets, weaken competition from local goods, enforce the acceptance of the petrodollar and control access to scarce resources. e. manipulation by central banks of money supply to benefit banks and favored corporations.
COMMUNITY
The needs of the community must never stand in the way of the needs of corporate capitalism and the state. Communities are restricted in their ability to "interfere" with corporate enterprise (Chapter 11 of NAFTA) Wherever possible the voluntary must be replaced with the professional, the small scale with the large centralized institution. Schools, as one example, must be "nationalized" through direct state control. Social welfare cut to a minimum and replaced with strong centralized authority. i.e., police and prisons. Militaristic "values" seen as good and offsetting the "soft" hedonistic, "feminine" values of the 1960's. Essentially, "War is good."
IDEOLOGY
Neocon ideology is eclectic and contradictory as one would expect from a rationalization of the unrestricted pursuit of power. Claiming the mantle of conservatism, yet pursuing unbridled destruction of community, customs and traditions. Pillaging the free market libertarians to rationalize cutting social welfare as "anti-statism" while ever increasing state power over our lives. Bellowing about the "free market" while engaging in the worst forms of mercantilist imperialism. Endless blather about the loss of values and morality, yet a practice contemptuous of humanity and amoral to a degree rarely seen outside of a fascist or Stalinist dictatorship. (It should be noted that by stealing and misusing conservative and libertarian phraseology, the neocons also help to discredit these ideas, thus marginalizing any opposition on their alleged political right.) Neocons constantly engage in "the end justifies the means" techniques in combating the opposition. Genuine conservatives are branded "anti-Semites" and "racists", moderate leftists, "extremists" , environmentalists, "terrorists" and critics of foreign policies, "traitors.". In its eclectic nature, its authoritarianism, militarism, statism, hostility for real democracy, centralism, Jacobinism, mercantilism, corporatism and Big Lie propaganda, neoconservatism is very similar to fascism. But of course, it is not fascism in the true sense, with its ambiguity about nationalism, and the lack of the party-army, mass mobilization of the population, leader-concept and a popular corporatist ideology. It could be seen as a moderate substitute for fascism or a form of Bertrand Grosses "Friendly Fascism" , although the Iraqis might well question the "friendly" bit. "
Present-day neocon fascism is basically the same as historic fascism, though watered down or altered in appearance a bit in order to make it more compatible with Anglo-American political culture.
Incidentally, if anything thinks I'm picking on Republicans, I take an equally dim view of the fascism of the Democrats as well.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060562544/103-6121018-2782227?v=glance&n=283155
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16391
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
Published: June 25, 2006 10:36 AM
M E Hoffer
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"-Thomas Jefferson
"hmmm, that "Eternal Vigilance" seems pretty high..."
"Do you accept American Express?"
Published: June 25, 2006 11:58 AM
Keith Preston
LOL, you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that one, M.E.!
I suspect if you asked Americans if they would trade the Bill of Rights for 10 years worth of gift certificates to Wal-Mart, Radio Shack or McDonald's, most of them would probably say, "Hell, yeah!"
Published: June 25, 2006 12:46 PM
TGGP
Keith, reading some of that made my head hurt. I really want to sympathize with what is being said, but the nonsense and hyperbole made it hard to choke down. There are only two things I'd like to point out. "The Bell Curve" was written by libertarians, and is primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive (although some might copy fascists in talking about "fascist science" instead of "jewish science") and Samuel Huntington is a paleconservative rather than a neocon. I suspect the reason people make such errors is that their "demonization of the Other" blinds them to reality.
Published: June 25, 2006 1:55 PM
Keith Preston
"...but the nonsense and hyperbole made it hard to choke down."
What "nonsense and hyperbole" is that? I pointed out the distinct similarities between the US regime at present those of both German Nazism and Italian Fascism, giving evidence to support both, while recognizing important differences as well. What did I say that was factually wrong?
""The Bell Curve" was written by libertarians, and is primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive (although some might copy fascists in talking about "fascist science" instead of "jewish science") and Samuel Huntington is a paleconservative rather than a neocon."
I don't recall the "Bell Curve" even being mentioned in any of my posts. I went back and re-read them and couldn't find anything. Perhaps I am missing something. Please enlighten me. As for the quote from Huntington, that's totally irrelevant to the main thrust of my argument. I agree that he's not a neocon, but his quote illustrates the elite backlash against the upheavals of the Vietnam era, which have subsequently led America in a fascist direction.
"I suspect the reason people make such errors is that their 'demonization of the Other' blinds them to reality."
Could be. But an "It can't happen here" mentality might also make many people blind to the evidence to support my arguments.
Published: June 25, 2006 2:50 PM
RogerM
Keith:"And the restraint of power is usually rooted in historical accidents like geographical considerations or the inability of any one warring faction to gain the upper hand and completely repress the others. That's about all there is to it."
Now who is being naive about history? Give me one example of the above.
The history of liberty began with Dutch Protestants. There isn't much doubt about that. And it wasn't an accident. The Dutch fought specifically for liberty. The liberty they established inspired others in Europe and the idea spread. I'll bet you can't name one place where liberty accidentally happened.
As for the Catholics being more rational than the Protestants, you should read the top scholar on the subject, Philip Gorski, who wrote "The Disciplinary Revolution." The evidence is clear that although the Catholics talked a good game, liberty had to wait for the Protestants to implement it. Dutch Protestants drew heavily from Catholic writings, especially the School of Salamanca, but the Catholics never practiced what they preached. The Protestants did.
"Sea-faring or port nations tend to become wealthy because they tend to become centers of trade and commerce." So how do you explain all of the port nations that are extremely poor? Holland, England, and America were Protestant nations. England got capitalism from the Dutch with the Dutch invasion of 1688. America was settled by Dutch and English. Hong Kong and Singapore didn't become wealthy until just a few decades ago, Hong Kong because of British rule. S. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan became wealthy only after WWII and only because they adopted the capitalism that the Dutch invented.
Venice, Spain, Portugal, Instanbul, Alexandria, Shanghai, Buenos Aires, Cape Town, all of the ports on the African coast, ports in India, Thailand and all over South America, why haven't they become rich? Because they lack capitalism. There are far more exceptions to your theory than agreements.
Published: June 25, 2006 3:41 PM
Jim Fedako
I suspect if you asked Americans if they would trade the Bill of Rights for 10 years worth of gift certificates to Wal-Mart, Radio Shack or McDonald's, most of them would probably say, "Hell, yeah!"
That's an interesting comment. A local company does market research by paying people to participate in focus groups in order to discuss issues or review new products. The key is that they pay in cash for participating in their focus groups.
To participate, you have to sign away what appears to be all rights to your name and likeness relative to the research and product. Do they have a tough time getting participants, no way. Remember, they pay in cash.
The difference is the participants have traded certain rights for a good they desired more. When government does the same, it uses coercion and compulsion to force the trade. Trust me, there is a big difference between the selling your rights and have them stolen at the point of a gun
Published: June 25, 2006 3:41 PM
Keith Preston
"Keith:"And the restraint of power is usually rooted in historical accidents like geographical considerations or the inability of any one warring faction to gain the upper hand and completely repress the others. That's about all there is to it."
Now who is being naive about history? Give me one example of the above."
For starters, classical Greece, the Roman Republic, the Holy Roman Empire and classical, colonial America.
"Venice, Spain, Portugal, Instanbul, Alexandria, Shanghai, Buenos Aires, Cape Town, all of the ports on the African coast, ports in India, Thailand and all over South America"
There's a fair amount of wealth in all of those places. For instances, the elite of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro live every bit as opulently as any of the elites of Europe or North America. You don't think there's any wealth in Turkery, Egypt or South Africa? I have friends from all of those places who can tell you otherwise.
Back to my earlier question: If capitalism is required for the creation wealth, and the Dutch invented it, then where did the wealth of ancient empire like Egypt, Babylon or Rome come from? A lot of it was plundered from other societies to be sure, but how did the "plunderees" get it in the first place?
Published: June 25, 2006 3:57 PM
Juan G.
I would like some American protestant to explain to me how does the terror bombing of Germany and Japan during WWII squares with all this rant about how good and human christianity is ?
Also, how did the USA and Great Britain, wich supposedly were the antithesis of communism ended up doing the dirty work for Stalin so that the commies conquered half Europe ?
Is there any doubt that the 'capitalist' USA were in reality the handmaiden of Stalin ?
I find it very hard to accept that the West is 'civilized' after Dresden and Hiroshima.
I find especially disgusting that while the nazis are correctly regarded as evil, the RAF pilots are considered 'heroes'.
The West has been half-fascist half-socialist for a long time now...
Published: June 25, 2006 6:40 PM
Roger M
Keith: "Back to my earlier question: If capitalism is required for the creation wealth, and the Dutch invented it, then where did the wealth of ancient empire like Egypt, Babylon or Rome come from? A lot of it was plundered from other societies to be sure, but how did the "plunderees" get it in the first place?"
Good questions! As I wrote above, warfare was the main method of wealth enhancement for nations before the Dutch Republic. But how did one group of people accumulate enough wealth that others would want to steal it? The peasants would create wealth by farming, trade and mining. Then the nobility would steal most of it through high taxes, corrupt judges, usury and many other means. Certainly there were new inventions, and the use of money allowed for the division of labor and specialization, all of which increased wealth.
So how were those millennia different from the period after the Dutch Republic? Explosive economic growth. Read anything by Angus Maddison and you’ll see that economic growth was excruciatingly slow before the Dutch, often went backwards and was punctuated by frequent famines that killed huge sections of the populace.
In 1600, most of the world had pretty much the same standard of living, in spite of all of the plundering and wars in the preceding millennia. Since then, the West has grown at an explosive rate. The rest of the world has grown in wealth also. Third World countries are much richer today than they were one or two hundred years ago, but they haven’t grown at the rate of the West, led by the Protestant nations and capitalism. That’s the difference that capitalism makes. The East, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea and others, have shown that the principles of capitalism aren’t limited to just Protestant countries; anyone can adopt them and benefit from them just as we have.
Published: June 26, 2006 9:00 AM
Mark D
I think the argument connecting Christianity with liberty is grounded in the concepts of 1. separation of temporal power and spiritual authority (see Augustine); and 2. the subordination of temporal power to the spiritual authority. This "de-divinization" of the temporal order left Rome without a civil theology, and probably contributed something to its ultimate extinction. In any case, these concepts liberated the idea that an authority existed superior to the temporal power and not controlled by the temporal power.
In Eastern societies (cosmological societies), these two -- the temporal and spiritual -- had been merged and were considered inseparable.
This was the end of the so-called cosmological societies in the West, and the beginnings of anthropological societies, that is, that a political community is not a reflection of God or Heaven (the perceived cosmological order) but rather is representative of either groups or individuals within the political community itself. This was a system of double representation that persisted through the Middle Ages: spriritual representation through the church and political representation through the prince, lord, or king (who was also subject to the spiritual authority of the church; cf. the Thomas More problem).
Kings weren't considered tyrants. They were considered representatives of the realm (the spiritual union of all within the political community); the King represented the order of society. If the King betrayed his duty of representation and disturbed the natural order, it was considered legitimate to depose that King and replace him with a legitimate representative of the realm, so the "tyranny" could be removed from the body politic and right order restored.
I think there is some confusion between the concepts of "progress" and "liberty." The concept of progress is dependent on one's internalized conception of history and man's place in history. Eastern societies (Hindu and Buddhist) view temporal history as an illusion, and they view time as circular. These understandings don't motivate such societies to grant significant meaning to history as such (except as punishment and suffering). In contrast, Western societies, dependent on a Judeo-Christian conception of history, tend to invest history with significant meaning, both for the individual and the society. Judeo-Christian history, in contrast to Eastern conceptions of time, is also linear and hence progessive. If history has meaning and is related to God, a concept of spiritual and temporal "progress" -- and its consolidation in time -- can emerge.
Our notion of liberty began to emerge when the King was no longer considered an adequate representative of the realm, and that representation of truth no longer resided in the monarch but in the people (or classes of people) themselves. This development found its perfect expression in the French Revolution, where both the temporal power (Louis XVI) and the spiritual authority of the Catholic Church were overthrown simultaneously, and replaced with the sovereignty of the people (who proceeded to subordinate the Church to state authority, an arrangement adopted by Henry VIII in the previous century).
These developments had been presaged by the Reformation, in which it was proclaimed that each man is a priest and each man requires no mediator (i.e., the Catholic Church and its sacramental sytem) in his relation to God. Grace was a matter of individual experience and relation, and spiritual authority was removed from the Catholic Church and became a matter of individual conscience. This transformation had enormous political consequences in the long term, for existential and spiritual order resided now with the individual and not in an institution; it was inevitable that individuals would then consider that their individual truth would require adequate political representation, and the only method for such representation would be something on the order of democracy. Combined with commercial growth, increasing wealth, literacy, communications, trade, growth of cities, etc., it seems inevitable in retrospect that something along the lines of democracy and freedom of conscience would be demanded, and that individuals would proclaim "liberty" as a symbol of these aspirations and new power relations. Because Christianity had already established the principle that the temporal power was subject to a higher spiritual authority, when that spiritual authority became vested in the individual, the individual assumed sovereignty (in equal proportions with his brothers: liberty, equality, fraternity).
Published: June 26, 2006 7:07 PM
Roger M
Mark, Good post! Just a few comments on the origins of religious liberty. Based on Israel's history of the Dutch Republic, it seems to me that the Protestants opted for religious freedom mainly because they were simply tired of all of the killing. The Calvinists didn't want religious freedom and tried to ban Catholics and Lutherans. But the influential politicians, and most of the people, followed a more mellow form of Protestantism that Israel calls Erasmian, after the great Christian humanist Erasmus. It doesn't seem to me that the Dutch were trying to create a new, model society. They just wanted the killing to stop.
Published: June 27, 2006 9:07 AM
Mark D
Another development that should be considered in the emergence of liberty is the existence and/or relation of the various loci of authority in Western society. I have in mind the sovereign (the king, lord, prince), the Church, the nation-state, and the individual.
It seems that the original dual loci of authority -- the king (or the Empire) and the church -- were gradually displaced by the nation-state, although monarchies were certainly active in the consolidation of the nation-state as a focus of authority and power. The first steps were the merger of the spiritual authority in the sovereign (France/Geneva), or the outright subordination of the spiritual authority to the King (England).
Ultimately, the temporal power either became sovereign (as in England), or the spiritual authority assumed temporal power (Cromwell, Geneva). Once the temporal power had been consolidated in a nation-state that had subordinated the spiritual authority, the issue became joined: the secular nation-state versus the sovereignty of the individual. This is the modern issue, and it is an issue that is still being negotiated today.
Those that claim that truth can only be represented in and through the state are likely to use the machinery of the state for realization of that truth (Soviet Union, fascist Italy). Those that view the nation-state as a threat to truth, but nevertheless a necessary evil, trend toward constitutional republics (the American founding, which so little feared the spiritual authority as a threat or rival to temporal power that it was left unfettered by the First Amendment).
The issue of liberty then emerged as a contest between the individual and the nation-state. The individual had used the nation-state to subordinate other rivals to sovereignty and authority -- the monarch and the Church -- but now found himself in a new contest. The ultimate solution was to subordinate the nation-state to the individual himself: popular sovereignty and representative government. This is an imperfect solution, as the machinery of the state has implicit incentives to bear down upon and restrict the sovereignty of the individual.
Published: June 27, 2006 9:08 AM
Mark D
Roger,
It seems there was killing at every stage.
When Christianity emerged in the Roman Empire, the Romans killed Christians for their universal presumption that the temporal power (Rome) was subject to some higher spiritual authority (the Kingdom of God). Augustine tried to reconcile these conflicts through his "double representation" schematic.
When the double representation schematic began to break down -- at the latest in the Reformation -- the killing began again. The first assault was upon the spiritual authority of the Church itself, and came from within the Church on specifically spiritual grounds. The temporal power was not idle however, and immediately took advantage to subordinate the spiritual authority. This urge, too, provoked violence.
Then, a contest developed as to which spiritual authority would be represented by the King: the Catholic or the Protestant. Each faction fought vigorously over this contest: the Protestants won in England, the Catholics won in France, and no one won in Germany.
The upshot of these conflicts was the inevitable triumph of the nation-state, whatever "official" religion it might have endorsed. The nation-state became the arbiter of spiritual authority throughout the realm.
Once the nation-state had become the undisputed focus of both temporal power and spiritual authority, the modern battle was joined between the individual and the nation-state. The final "solution" was to subordinate the nation-state to popular sovereignty, and this transformation also required some killing, as in 1789 France.
But, yes, the killing became tiresome. The final configuration of our Constitution can be viewed as an expression of weariness over these conflicts. The US Constitution more or less declared that the killing had ended, the conflict was over, and sovereignty rested exclusively in the people. It also declares implicitly that spiritual authority rests not in the nation-state but in the individual, and the nation-state has no legitimate power to divest this authority from the individual. One could argue that this investment of final spiritual authority in the individual is the ground for "rights" as against the nation-state; the nation-state is vested with temporal power, but it is subject to the final superior authority of individual rights and conscience (which rights may be interpreted as spiritual and outside the competence or jurisdiction of the temporal power).
Hence, some commentators call religious freedom the "first freedom." Once the modern nation-state attempts to become the arbiter of spiritual authority, it represents both a regression to the 17th Century conflicts and an effort to constrict individual sovereignty.
Published: June 27, 2006 9:41 AM
Doyle
The Protestants won in England
Surely the Catholic Church of England won in England?
Published: June 27, 2006 10:17 AM
Peter
This article from 2001 relates to the topic.
Published: June 28, 2006 1:02 AM
Jude Chua Soo Meng
I just recently read this article by Mises. I think he understates the achievement of Chinese (philosophers) and their tendency to resist the state: remember that before Chin Shi Wang, China was a collection of many little states fighting each other, and generals would resist their lords and form a little state themselves. And during the Wei-Chin period, philosophers (influenced by Daoism) defended the political doctrine of non-interference (wu-wei), aimed at giving people the freedom to follow their own innate (moral) tendencies.
But I've been rereading Mises' analysis, and it has a point. I'm an Asian, and I appreciate it when he points out how culturally, there can be a desire to "please the authorities". This is precisely the criticism that Wang Bi, a 3rd century (very important) commentator of the Dao De Jing had for the very prominent and authoritarian emperor. His criticism was encoded in the phrases of the Dao De Jing: "The Nameless and Formless Dao was the origin of the ten thousand things"--meaning, only if the ruler did not use Forms (laws) to form people into the desired moral forms, and only if the ruler would refuse to use Names (gifts of official titles and appointments) to lure good behavior, would there be the flourishing of the citizens, who of themselves (ziran, naturally) become moral(truly, and not just to curry favor and secure material rewards), and prosper.
If the ruler (state) is too prominent, whether one likes it or not, there will be many who will perform a kind of self-censorship, and do and develop what pleases it. If on the other hand the ruler becomes formless (invisible, hidden, does not dictate things), then like the Dao creative goodness (that is authentic) will naturally arise. Wang Bi says this, and I will not disagree with him.
I think, tactless though Mises is, he's got a point.
Published: June 29, 2006 5:17 AM
Cutreda
It's so interesting:,
Published: May 6, 2008 11:19 PM
Cutreda
It's so interesting:,
Published: May 6, 2008 11:21 PM
Bobrila
If you have a little free time, read this post:,
Published: June 11, 2008 11:28 AM
matar_cd
http://index1.finimi.com >pornstar britney sky http://index5.finimi.com >gay marriage laws in the us http://index3.finimi.com >titts pics http://index4.finimi.com >howe modifed chassis http://index2.finimi.com >pittsburgh glass and mirror company
Published: July 1, 2008 5:55 PM