World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals
In contrast to older historians who regarded World War I as the destruction of progressive reform, Murray Rothbard was convinced that the war came to the United States as the "fulfillment," the culmination, the veritable apotheosis of progressivism in American life. He regarded progressivism as basically a movement on behalf of Big Government in all walks of the economy and society, in a fusion or coalition between various groups of big businessmen, led by the House of Morgan, and rising groups of technocratic and statist intellectuals. In this fusion, the values and interests of both groups would be pursued through government. World War I brought the fulfillment of all these progressive trends. Militarism, conscription, massive intervention at home and abroad, a collectivized war economy, all came about during the war and created a mighty cartelized system that most of its leaders spent the rest of their lives trying to recreate, in peace as well as war. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (3)
Very interesting piece...
I am currently working on a short article about NSC-68 and the building of the Cold War state. I was intrigued to find the roots of what becomes full blown in 1950, with Truman's Administration, had its roots in the WWI. I had been aware of war production management in Britain during the same period, but was unaware of the extent it appeared in the United States as well.
Well written, entertaining,
Published: June 8, 2007 8:54 PM
The crusade of many of today's church groups (aside from prohibition of abortion and continued sustenance of America's client state in the Mideast, Israel) seems to be global warming.
Global warming assumes the same global scope found in the ambitions of the Progressives and even smacks of appeasing a God(s) offended by man's profligacy in burning excessive fossil fuels in his unfettered pursuit of ease and sensual pleasure. The attraction between Christian moralists and enlistment of the state in enforcement of measures against global warming is magnetic.
On another matter in this article, could the Great Man have lapsed into misstatement regarding a measure whose goal, at least, he favored (women's suffrage)? He said the suffrage amendment "allowed women to vote."
That's not how it worked, as I recall. It invaded the control over voter rolls the states had exercised since the beginning of the republic and FORCED them ALL to admit women on the same basis as they admitted men to the rolls. As actually noted in this article, a significant number of states ALREADY admitted women to voter's rolls and others were no doubt verging in that direction.
I would expect those opposed to centralized national government, including Murray Rothbard, to have opposed this amendment, in somewhat the same way many libertarians favor the recent verdict of the Supreme Court in Kelo v New London (eminent domain). That verdict left local control unimpaired, while unfortunately at least appearing to uphold larcenous exercise of eminent domain.
Published: June 9, 2007 7:28 PM
Among the several significant insights in this important essay are the corruption of the intellectuals and the messianic justification employed by some of them to remake the world using the violence of the state to stamp out man’s “sinfulness”. While the specifics of, and the overt religious justification for the crusades has in many cases changed, the same general ideology underlies the approach of many modern-day, state-bankrolled intellectuals.
In so many ways, the "progressive" era was a watershed in U.S. history.
This was an excellent article to highlight as the "Weekend Edition".
Published: June 10, 2007 3:46 PM