by Keith Preston
[Moved from the comments of Hungarian State Goes Totalitarian Humanist]
I am going chance the risk of offending everyone by offering a defense of both the National Policy Institute and C4SS.
I spoke to an NPI gathering a few years ago, and I am personally acquainted with many of the individuals who were involved in the brouhaha in Hungary. Describing the NPI as “Nazi” is like referring to all leftist thought as “Communist.” Leftists usually do not recognize the diversity of rightist thinking. The participants at a NPI gathering would include a wide spectrum of political opinions, including ideologies very few Americans have even heard of. When I have been to meetings sponsored by NPI or other overlapping groups I have encountered libertarians, paleconservatives, national-anarchists, national-bolsheviks, Nietzscheans, Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox, nationalists, identitarians, monarchists, Jewish conservatives, pan-Europeans, radical traditionalists, neo-pagans, fascists, race realists, and others too numerous to mention. The only common thread is usually disdain for the Left and a desire to preserve traditional Western civilization against mass immigration and demographic displacement. Whether this is a worthy goal or not may well be an individual value judgment, but it is hardly synonymous with Hitlerism.
As for my relationship with these people, some of them are interested in my critique of totalitarian humanism, some my advocacy of pan-secession, some my promotion of decentralized libertarian populism, and some all of these.While most of them are not philosophical anti-statists, they are most certainly enemies of the existing states we presently have in the Western world as the incident in Hungary demonstrates. Just as libertarians like Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess aligned themselves with Marxists and other leftists during the 1960s and 1970s against the excesses of democratic states at the time, so it is now often necessary for libertarians to align themselves with rightists to oppose certain present day excesses.
As for C4SS, I don’t agree that “progressive” is an apt label for them. Historic progressivism was for Americans what the Fabians were for England, i.e. forbears of the managerial public administration state. The classical progressives in the U.S. often worked in collusion with big capital for the ostensible purpose of enhancing the scientific management of society. Ironically, the class American progressives were usually quite racist, and were advocates of not only segregation but eugenics. They merely did an about face on this question after World War Two for obvious reasons (see Thomas Sowell’s work on this history). Today, most people claiming the label “progressive” for themselves are statist liberals and social democrats. I certainly don’t think is a fitting description for C4SS. However, C4SS and actual progressives do share much of the same cultural leftist outlook (e.g. disdain for traditional religion, a generally egalitarian outlook, regarding social conservatism as a primary evil, the view that illiberal opinions about race, gender, sexual orientation. etc. are the ultimate sins). Rather C4SS is a libertarian-leftist hybrid that sees libertarianism as a means to leftist ends, or vice versa.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
Powered by YARPP.
As I said in the other thread, I use the term “progressive” to describe those who currently describe themselves as “progressive” and I’m not too bothered with the history of words, just as the fact that “cleave” once meant to join things, but now means to separate things, or that mincemeat was once minced meat but is now a fruity mix, means I should worry about the earlier meanings of those terms in modern conversation. I do as it goes believe that the current “progressives” are a direct lineal descendent of the Victorian “progressives” even if they have done an apparent volte face on one or two issues (race, and teh gheys) and that the “corporatist collusion” aspect is misinterpreted and misstated by modern leftists, but that is not really the point. If somebody wants to give me a better term than “progressive” or “Politically correct” or (particularly the grotesquely misused) “liberal”, feel free to suggest one. My point about the C4SS is that their writings in the main- despite Thomas Knapp’s protestations- clearly cleave (haha!) frequently and deeply to the “modern progressive” suite of beliefs- racism hysteria, public healthism (temperance), feminism, environmentalism, homophobiaphobia, corporationphobia etc etc.
My general point is that if the identifiable enemy of liberty for much of the 20th century was Communism, the identifiable enemy now, as it was before that, is “progressivism” and everyone who opposes that has some common cause, and I believe that you cannot fight for liberty if you are a believer in their suite of moral values. Even if you say, “but I don’t want the State to impose them”. If you want something to stop people smoking in pubs, or saying racisty things on Twitter, or what have you- be it the State or the organised mob bullying we euphemise as “direct action” or “citizen activism”, you are not going to be a friend to liberty in the long run.
As to your speech to the NPI Keith, I’ve watched it a number of times on YouTube and agree with pretty much all of it, and might even go so far as to all it quite inspirational. I do not agree with the preferences of most of the other speakers at that conference, other than the view that mass immigration is a direct challenge to western societies’ surivival in a recognisable form- and thus a direct challenge to the hope of them remaining liberal (at least, those shreds of liberalism which are left). I personally believe that if we do not address the demographic challenge of immigration, the future is bleak. I appreciate though that many libertarians disagree and (wrong headedly in my view) believe that open borders are necessary for libertarianism. My own view on this is that the Free Movement Of People is not much use as an ideal if you end up as a caliphate as a result. But that’s just me.
“My point about the C4SS is that their writings in the main- despite Thomas Knapp’s protestations- clearly cleave (haha!) frequently and deeply to the “modern progressive” suite of beliefs- racism hysteria, public healthism (temperance), feminism, environmentalism, homophobiaphobia, corporationphobia etc etc.”
I don’t think there’s any way to rationally dispute that. Even a cursory look at their material, not to mention the personal blogs and social media of their leading figures, indicates that is precisely the set of values they subscribe to (well, I don’t know about the temperance thing in the case of C4SS, but the rest of it certainly seems to apply). Some of the folks who are in or have been in that milieu respond with absolute hysteria to even the mere presentation of views that conflict with those you have described. They’re certainly part of what we in the U.S. sometimes call the “Blue Tribe.” I thought this was a pretty good critique of that scene: http://therightstuff.biz/2013/09/09/exercises-in-degeneration-the-c4ss-experience/
” I personally believe that if we do not address the demographic challenge of immigration, the future is bleak. I appreciate though that many libertarians disagree and (wrong headedly in my view) believe that open borders are necessary for libertarianism. My own view on this is that the Free Movement Of People is not much use as an ideal if you end up as a caliphate as a result. ”
I used to be an open borders libertarian, and the issues you’ve raised here are what motivated me to change my opinion. For libertarianism to exist for any duration, you have to have a large middle class in the society. If you have wide class divisions, you end up with a situation where the elites rule through sheer repression (see traditional Latin American societies) or where demagogues come to power promising to help the poor. Mass immigration is being used to create a massive underclass of helot laborers and public charges, and fracture society into warring tribes that are too divided against one another to fight against the state or the power elite.
Just one clarificational point; when I say “temperance”, I use it to cover a broad range of what we might call comestibles purity beliefs with a common 19th century genesis- a belief in the social impurity of alcohol, tobacco and narcotics, but also “junk” food, meat (ideological vegetarianism) etc. At least here in Britain there is currently a major surge in belief in and State promotion of these values, as in the USA, where for instance “soda” is now being treated as a similar social ill to alcohol (which is itself under renewed attack).
I absolutely agree. The “nanny state” food and smoking police are a big part of the U.S. progressive milieu at present. Plus, the fanatical vegan/animals rights people are a growing constituency on the Left. The Left hasn’t been much help in opposing the War on Drugs, and the feminists are escalating their attacks on sex workers/prostitutes as well. During the era of alcohol prohibition in the USA there was as much support for it from the Left as there was from conservative Christians.
In their defense, however, I’ve never seen the C4SS circle succumb to much of this “therapeutic state” nonsense. Most of them don’t seem to be that worried about environmentalism, either. Instead, their leftist extravagance tends to be more in the area of “privilege theory” and their embrace of white guilt, radical feminism, the most extreme “LGBT” tendencies and the like. I think the obvious reason for that is that so many of the C4SS folks seem to originate from the “sexual minority” communities.
That’s the real source of my ongoing feud with the left-libertarians around C4SS. I used to be peripherally associated with them, as I was interested in some of their ideas on economics. But then I realized most of them were PC fanatics, and some of them starting attacking me for daring to suggest that the libertarian/anarchist/anti-state movement need not have any party line position on homosexuality as a moral/religious question, or gay marriage, or any of that. It got pretty virulent at one point, and I realized they ultimately cared more about “transgender” issues and the like than attacking the state. In fact, it seemed to be they simply wanted libertarianism to be a branch office of the “LGBT” rights movement. My position then as now is that libertarianism no more needs to revolve around “LGBTs” than it needs to revolve around Scientologists and UFO-believers.
The difference between C4SS and NPI…well, NPI would be like C4SS if they used every possible discussion, thread, and tangent to talk about white genocide. Occidental Observer is a bit more like C4SS, in their one-note Jewish fixation. Generally, Long seems to be an interesting technical philosopher, and Carson is an okay-if-crankish political economist, but these two (not to mention the rest of the horde) spend more of their time worrying about trivial nonsense PC mania than they do writing anything academic. I’d say the same for Mises.org, not that they’re fanatical lefties, but they stopped focusing on hardcore economics and philosophical obscurantism, now they’re just a shitty news blog (isn’t that what LRC was for?)
” I do not agree with the preferences of most of the other speakers at that conference, other than the view that mass immigration is a direct challenge to western societies’ surivival in a recognisable form”
That speech was very well-received, and even by some people who wouldn’t normally give any kind of libertarianism let alone anarchism the time of day. I’ve since encountered many in “radical right” circles who call themselves “situational anarchists” meaning they don’t necessarily oppose the state as a matter of principle, but certainly oppose these PC states we now have. And I’ve encountered many who understand that whatever their personal preferences, the best they will likely able to do is form independent enclaves for themselves that reflect their own values, e.g. micronations, city-states, or intentional communities, or that some kind of libertarianism or decentralism is probably the most viable strategic position they could take. I’ve had many leading figures in the “radical right” tell me that. When they start talking like that then they’re halfway home.
The reason I often get so disgusted with many left-leaning libertarians is that when I explain this to them, they will respond with comments like “These right-wing people are morally repulsive” or “No, we can’t have them setting up enclaves of their own because they might not let gays get married” or comments of similar levels of sophistication. In other words, many of the left-leaning libertarians and anarchists are more interested in being left-wing do-gooders than they are in actually attacking the state, and building movements, organizations, alliances, and viable strategies for that purpose.
Keith,
I’m not sure where you get the “disdain for traditional religion” bit about C4SS. I haven’t polled my comrades there as to their religious beliefs, but I know that at least some of them are Christians. And of course the word “traditional” is a landmine in the US insofar as there are a number of competing “traditions.”
I personally don’t consider social conservatism an evil at all, up to the point that its practitioners turn to the state to impose it on people who don’t agree with it.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were a minority of C4SS associates who are influenced by, say, Tolstoy, Dorothy Day, Ammon Hennacy or comparable anomalous, atypical, Christian figures. But I’d certainly be surprised if there were any Latin Mass Catholics, Russian Orthodox traditionalists, Calvinists, or Lutherans at C4SS in the same way that you might be these around, say, the Mises Institute. Not that I’m saying that’s a bad thing.
“I personally don’t consider social conservatism an evil at all, up to the point that its practitioners turn to the state to impose it on people who don’t agree with it.”
Keep talking like that and you may end up being persona non grata at C4SS. Is it not at least the prevailing view at C4SS that leftist “privilege theory” needs to be incorporate into libertarianism as a “thick” value because of “structural injustice” and “cultural authoritarianism” and the like?
I should probably add that whatever the folks at C4SS think of me, I’m glad they exist, and they play a valuable role in the sense of doing libertarian and anarchist outreach work to the wider Left. I personally don’t care for the rabid leftism I’ve seen there, but I also don’t care for the Cato Institute’s cozying up the GOP, or Hoppe’s quasi-monarchist traditionalism, or the Marxism of the anarcho-leftists, or the Randians deification of business tycoons, or many other strands of libertarianism. Yet I accept all of these as part of the wider libertarian grey macro-tribe.
Tolstoi was also a crypto-Atheist, basically one of these NT-only liberal Protestants who believe in egalitarian feels religion but don’t want to be tied down to all that reactionary ‘religion’ in the Bible. As far as traditionalism goes, modern Left-Protties are ‘heretical at best’ and more likely apostate. Based on their beliefs they are absolute not Christians, unless we also want to label Freemasons and Liberals ‘Christians’ for their vaguely similar talking points. I have no beliefs in ‘actual Christianity’, but as a non-rhetorical employment of terminology very few people who can be described as believing or practicing Christians exist outside of African villages and the like. The only people who believe anything like any version of historical Christianity are peasants in brown countries and fringers like Gary North.
At the risk of looking like a Keith Preston fanboy, I just found this interview by him of Paul Gottfried-
http://youtu.be/DaP2WaYr9vU
-which I think is pretty essential listening and discusses much that we have debated on this blog.
The defining feature of National Socialism (as opposed to other forms of collectivism) is its fanatical anti Semitism.
I expect (although I am willing to be corrected – indeed I would be happy if the NPI turned out NOT to be yet another “down with big business” organisation) that these NPI political types denounce “big business” and the “capitalist rich” (all collectivists, Fascists-Communists-communal-“anarchists” and so on, tend to), but whether they can legitimately can be called “Nazis” depends on whether they are also (or top of this) anti-Semitic. As few people openly admit to wanting to exterminate Jews one would have to ask them such questions as “what is your opinion of Israel” – to see whether they engage in the “I am not anti-Semitic I am anti Zionist” tap dance that modern people who want to exterminate six million (or more) Jews tend to do.
I also note that Keith Preston is still pushing the line that American Progressives (such as “Teddy” Roosevelt for the Republicans and Woodrow Wilson for the Democrats) were allies of “Capital” (the Marxist name for “big business”) – this line (pushed by Mr Preston and his friends – although invented by Kolko and other dishonest socialist historians) is false.
I do not know whether the Hungarian NPI is Nazi or not – I would have to talk to them (or read their stuff) to know that.
As for the “Centre for a Stateless Society”.
Simple questions for them.
Do they accept that more business enterprises (including big business enterprises) were hurt rather than helped by Progressive policies?
Do they accept that Frank Fetter refuted David Ricardo on land?
And do they accept that all lending should be from REAL SAVINGS (not credit money expansion), at interest rates agreed between borrowers and lenders?
If the answer to all three of these questions are positive – then I have misjudged the “Centre for a Stateless Society”.
“one would have to ask them such questions as “what is your opinion of Israel”
You would probably get a mixture of responses on that. There are some on the nationalist right who regard Israel as allies in what they see as a pending confrontation between the West and Islam. There are also some who consider Israel to be a model ethnostate.
However, there are others who regard Israel as an interloper in Western, particularly American, politics and as albatross around the neck of the West. There are genuine and often very significant disagreements about these questions in those circles.
The Kolko thesis holds up pretty well: http://washingtonexaminer.com/a-historian-who-understood-why-big-business-wanted-regulation/article/2548957
Both big business apologists and fans of the progressives alike have attacked Kolko for the purpose of salvaging the reputations of both. But the basics of Kolko’s arguments, not to mention the voluminous evidence he provided to support his thesis, are really just a matter of common political sense.
It shouldn’t be especially difficult to understand why “big business” interests would prefer state intervention to protect themselves from competition over honest competition in the free market. It shouldn’t be particularly difficult to understand that big business interests would also have the wealth and access to political power to make such state-imposed protection happen. Many libertarians and free-market conservatives refer to this as “crony capitalism.”
Nor should it be difficult to understand that owners and managers of large enterprises might adopt the ideological view that a state-managed or centrally-directed economy might somehow be more efficient or at least serve their own interests better than an unregulated free market. For instance, H. Ross Perot was pushing for the U.S. to adopt a Japanese model industrial policy when he was running for President in the early 1990s, even though he personally symbolized the kind of rags to riches Horatio Alger model of capitalist success that many Randian-influenced libertarians champion.
It is not difficult to imagine that the success of many business corporations is rooted in state intervention in various ways. A firm wishes to enter a particular town. The local government uses its power of eminent domain to take land from its previous owner to provide the firm with land to build its facilities on. Then government gives them more land for additional construction (parking lots, storage facilities, etc.). Then government builds a new highway to make access to this firm’s facilities more rapid and more convenient. Then zoning ordinances, licensing requirements. and other regulations are enacted that restrict competition by smaller or start up enterprises. All of these things are routine occurrences. Indeed, it could be argued that these and other comparable arrangements are basically the norm. As I have written elsewhere:
“Serious free market economists, such as Rothbard, have long recognized that the corporatist structure of modern “Big Business” rests on state intervention rather than lassez faire. The state creates the fictitious legal infrastructure of corporate “personhood”. The state protects and assists corporations by means of limited liability laws, subsidies, government contracts, loans, guarantees, bailouts, purchases of goods, price controls, regulatory privilege, grants of monopolies, protectionist tariffs and trade policies, bankruptcy laws, military intervention to gain access to international markets and protect foreign investments, regulating or prohibiting organized labor activity, eminent domain, discriminatory taxation, ignoring corporate crimes and countless other forms of state-imposed favors and privileges.”
All of this should be Political Economy 101. I don’t get why it should even be controversial among libertarians.
Because it’s the wrong story told from the data, and it’s basically a rather tiresome fireside tale told by American leftists to each other for a hundred years. The history of Left thought is somewhat different in the USA to Europe. In the Old World, there was a strong concept of a class system, so the idea of bourgeois vs. proletariat made sense to socialists. In the USA, socialism was a harder sell, due to the idea that it was a nation without a class system and, most significantly, with a strong free market ethic.
So socialists put on their thinking caps and came up with another “class war”; between “small business”- the mom and pop store, the farmer, the sole trader- and “big business”. Main street vs. Wall Street etc. And have been repeating it ever since (and spreading it too, the same crap gets spouted a lot here as well these days).
The whole point of Progressivism (whcih I use here to mean the statism we have lived under in the Anglosphere since the Victorian Era) is a concept in which every institution is bound together into a moral system- government, education, business, charities, etc etc. The upshot of this is that one can prove that anyone is connected to and benefitting from the State- because everyone is. Everyone is also suffering from that bondage. You can then argue all night about whether any particular sector, institution or corporate group is getting a net benefit or loss from it. I could show the same State connections in education, for instance, or charities, or activist groups. Or indeed, welfare recipients, employees, small businesses, mothers, children… on and on it goes.
The American left then dishonestly just single out businesses as State beneficiaries- normally including some weenie snobbery about Walmart. Hell, if you ask Kevin Carson, the government built the roads to give Walmart an “unfair advantage over local producers” and we ought to tear them all up and go back to riding our horses across the prariries or something.
Under libertarianism, none of this would have happened. But we haven’t had libertarianism, so it has. *shrugs*
“The whole point of Progressivism (whcih I use here to mean the statism we have lived under in the Anglosphere since the Victorian Era) is a concept in which every institution is bound together into a moral system- government, education, business, charities, etc etc. The upshot of this is that one can prove that anyone is connected to and benefitting from the State- because everyone is.”
You left out another important element in all that, i.e. the media. No general disagreement here, with the qualification that I don’t think industries and corporations who receive billions in state assistance are comparable to workers who benefit from minimum wags laws or people receiving a voucher for an $800 per month apartment.
This is an important issue in U.S. politics because many of our conservatives, libertarians, and “free market” folks have no conception of what state-capitalism or crony-capitalism is. Instead, they follow the Randian line that “big business is America’s most persecuted minority.” There are tons of “conservatives” in the U.S. who seriously believe that the primary problem with “big government” is all those lazy people receiving a pittance in subsistence payments from social services, and dirty leftists giving kids condoms in public schools. If you mention the military-industrial complex to them, they think there’s no such thing. Corporate welfare is something they’ve never heard of.
These folks end up making libertarians and free-market economists looks like the worst stereotypes that Leftists depict them as.
“So socialists put on their thinking caps and came up with another “class war”; between “small business”- the mom and pop store, the farmer, the sole trader- and “big business”. Main street vs. Wall Street etc. And have been repeating it ever since (and spreading it too, the same crap gets spouted a lot here as well these days).”
I’d have to add as well that it’s not just socialists who hold to a critique like this, but also some libertarians (not just the quasi-Marxist kind, but also some Austrians like Rothbard), and also many traditionalist conservatives as well (see the distributists).
Since you mention Wal-Mart, I’d acknowledge that bashing Wal-Mart has become a cliched leftist fad, but are situations like what is described in this article really desirable from a libertarian perspective? http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/14/six-waltons-have-more-wealth-than-the-bottom-30-of-americans/
Can a libertarian society really exist within the context of a Latin American, South Asian, or Middle Eastern model class system? Or is such a system really just going to be one where masses of helots are ruled by an overclass?
I don’t think political power, military power, legal power, and economic power can all be separated from each other in the neat and tidy way many libertarians seem to think. Instead, I think all of these interlock with one another.
England was a pretty free place under the old class system/aristocracy. Hume called it the greatest liberty in any nation on Earth at the time. We’ve lost our liberty under egalitarian democracy. I don’t think class systems and liberty are coupled.
I see economic inequality (to get Marxist) as “superstructural” to coercive power. Take away the coercive power- either from the State or perhaps a religion or other coercive ideology- and economics will sort itself out. In this sense, I disagree with both Marxism and much orthodox libertarianism. Marxism openly sees everything as superstructural to the mode of production; libertarianism seems to have fallen into the trap- in opposing Marxism, decades ago- of seeing things the same way, and smply arguing for an altenrative mode of production (free market).
I think free markets are a consequence of free people. So my approach would be to remove the coercive apparatus, and let the free people that result sort themselves out.
Okay, then we are on the same page.
Forget Jews, I’d like to start burning stupid paranoid Goys who keep bringing up the Holocaust and trying to link everything to their Gay WW2 religion. Not to mention that it’s mostly bullshit history and a Hollywood-spanwed image of the Nazis you’re going on to begin with.
There are, and have always been, anti-Semitic Jews – so a defence of someone that goes along the lines of “he can not be anti-Semitic – he is a Jew!” is a false defence.
Many Jews are anti-Semitic. After all, Palestinians are Semites as well.
You seem to be conflating opposition to a state (anti-Zionism) with opposition to a people (anti-Hebraism).
[…] By Keith Preston […]
Mr Preston no Jew I have ever spoken to wants to exterminate Muslims – whereas many Muslims want to exterminate Jews. As for “Palestinians” – interesting how this Emperor Hadrian thing was brought back, even as late as the 1940s hardly anyone talked in terms of “Palestinians” – they were either fighting for Islam or for secular “Arabism”. The Grand Mufti or that chap from Egypt who became head of what became the “PLO” (Yasser Arafat) did think in terms of a nation-state of “Palestine” back in those days. It was more an 1960s thing – imitating the Marxists “National Liberation” movements of the time.
The German Comrades (they were deep in the “Palestinian” movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s – just as the IRA Comrades were later) were early on the scene – not anti Jewish of course they were only, as they explained, against “money Jews”. Alas all Jews turned out to be “money Jews”.
By the way – in spite of your Black Flagism – the Islamists (both Sunni and Shia) would still use you for dog food.
Not that would they would tell a person this in advance – not whilst they were still useful.
Islam is not just interested in a bit of land between the Jordan River and the Med – Islam has world claims. And the followers of Mohammed will do whatever is necessary to further those claims. As much in the twin cities of Minnesota as in Tel Aviv (it is all the same to them).
“Mr Preston no Jew I have ever spoken to wants to exterminate Muslims..”
I assure you there plenty of Jews and Gentiles alike who would like to do just that (see the neocons, the Ayn Rand Institute, Leonard Peikoff, the “USA! USA!” yahoos who comprise the rank and file of the American right-wing and so on).
As for the rest of your comments, it could be. But I don’t know what any of this has to do with anything I posted above concerning the NPI and related groups. You would probably find many people among the nationalist right-wing who would agree with everything you said. In fact, much of the nationalist right in Europe is much more concerned with the perceived demographic threat posed by Islam than by the supposed Jewish influence in the internal politics of European countries. In fact, the various Euro-nationalist and identitarian movements have frequently made a hasty retreat from anti-Semitism in recent years in favor of “Islamophobia” (see the English Defense League, the Frente Nacional, the counter-jihadists, Guillaume Faye, and even the BNP, and in the US, see American Renaissance).
For the record, my position on Islam is that Western countries should refrain completely from military intervention in the Islamic world while limiting immigration by Muslims in order to maintain demographic balance.
On Walmart, as you know Keith, if roads did not exist (not even private ones – such as the Turn Pike trust network of 18th century England and Wales, things were always different in Scotland and Ireland) then supermarkets would be near railway stations (as would the people). People who say that they hate Walmart because of government this-and-that are not telling the truth – the truth being that they just hate success. And would hate it just as much if it was a single individual rather than a “corporation” (by the way – an ancient idea, the law concerning limited liability and so on was developed in the Middle Ages both from Canon Law and Law Merchant). I do not think it likely that any “left libertarian” would rush to praise Lloyds “names” who provide insurance (at a high price) without limited liability (the lack of limited liability is why the price is high and the choice restricted – after all they are risking their shirts, so they will only do so on their own terms).
Still back to my questions……
I got an answer to question one – sadly it was the WRONG answer. One that failed to understand that Progressive policies (on balance) hurt business enterprises (including large business enterprises) far more than they help (hardly a surprise as Richard Ely and co, who actually developed the policies, were not friends of “big business”).
As you have got the first question wrong (falling back on the tired nonsense of Kolko and co). Let us turn to questions two and three.
Do you accept that Frank Fetter refuted David Ricardo on land?
And….
Do you accept that all lending should be from REAL SAVINGS (not credit money expansion) at interest rates decided between lenders and borrowers?
If it helps Murray Rothbard got both these questions right.
On the first question he was inconsistent (saying different things in different years) – but he was not inconsistent on questions two and three.
So let us see how well you do.
No one denies that in any kind of economy supermarkets would be located near heavily traveled thoroughfares, whether roads or railways. But that’s not the point. The point is to what degree does state intervention benefit larger, politically connected competitors over smaller ones. Even Adam Smith recognized that businessmen are often the greatest enemies of the free market regardless of whether anyone “hates success” or not.
“And would hate it just as much if it was a single individual rather than a “corporation””
Actually, the model of state-capitalism symbolized by 19th century “individual” plutocrats worked in essentially the same ways as the the contemporary corporatist-collectivist version as an elementary reading of American economic history will indicate.
“Do you accept that Frank Fetter refuted David Ricardo on land?”
I don’t believe in any universalist concept of land rights or property rights. These are outgrowths of pre-existing cultural norms and evolved traditions.
http://attackthesystem.com/2013/02/26/against-a-univeralist-conception-of-property-rights/http://attackthesystem.com/2013/02/26/against-a-univeralist-conception-of-property-rights/
“Do you accept that all lending should be from REAL SAVINGS (not credit money expansion) at interest rates decided between lenders and borrowers?”
Well, I think Rothbard had some pretty poignant criticisms of fractional reserve banking if that’s what you’re getting at.
MRDA – in practice it is the same thing.
The defeat of Israel would mean the extermination of six million (plus) Jews, plus Christian and Muslim “collaborators”.
There are about one million Muslim citizens of Israel – there are no Jewish citizens of Gaza. As for the “West Bank” (much of which is closer to the sea than to the Jordan river), after 1948 very few Jews were left alive there (although since 1967 many old settlement, and some new ones, have been populated).
I have actually looked for a defendable line that is not the Jordan river valley – the 1948 cease fire lines being hopeless (they were arbitrary, just where the armies happened to be at that moment – the Gaza “strip” is just that, the firing strip the army of Egypt, and militia allies, were in 1948).
I have been unable to find lines that make military sense – hopefully more experienced people than me can find them. Something better than the 1948 lines – which make Israel only a couple of hours wide at the narrow point (very vulnerable to a well organised attack – vulnerable to a thrust to the sea).
Unlike the vast numbers of Jews kicked out of Islamic lands (into Israel), the various Islamic nations have made it clear that they will NOT integrate Muslims from the land between the river Jordan and the sea (not even from the Gaza firing strip – where the population has gone up from 30 thousand in 1948 to more than a million today, totally unsustainable), these Muslims have been kept as “refugees” in countries such as Syria (even before its present difficulties) for generations – not made citizens of these countries (as they should have been).. Therefore a state for these Muslims will have to be created – so they may live their Islamic lifestyle (stoning homosexuals, oppressing women, crushing all non Muslims, and so on) as many of them (although NOT all of them) so strongly desire to do.
What should be the borders of this state? How can it be made militarily harmless?
The problem with the Gaza firing strip is two fold.
It has a sea coast, and it has a border with Egypt – thus making the smuggling in of missile parts and raid-tunnel building equipment difficult to stop (every fishing boat has to be watched – as does every lorry coming in from Egypt).
A new state in the “West Bank” (I repeat a lot of it is closer to the sea than to the Jordan river) would have to have very carefully drawn borders in order to make it as harmless as possible.
The topography is difficult – there seem to be no clear useful natural boundaries till one gets to the Jordan river valley.
However, I may have missed them – out of inexperience, or stupidity on my part.
The north is also a problem – “giving back” the hills of the Golan (although an independent Syria only existed from the 1940s – becoming a dictatorship in 1963) would be folly.
It would enable Islamic forces (Sunni or Shia) to shell most of northern Israel – and send out raiding parties (both of which was done from the 1940s – to 1967).
1973 was interesting – the Syrian attack was a lot more than a Syrian one, large numbers of troops from Morocco (over a thousand miles away – some “moderate” King of Morocco) plus (later) Jordanians (again so much for the moderate King) Saudis (no surprise from “our friends the Saudis”) and divisions from Iraq.
In the end this has got nothing to do with “Palestinian nationalism” – the enemy is the Islamic world.
In Egypt the Copts (Christians) are strong supporters of the present (disguised) military dictatorship – fearing that the only alternative is the Muslim Brotherhood (and they are probably correct).
The Zs (sorry I do not know the spelling – because I can not pronounce the word correctly) of the Yemen are quite interesting.
Fiver Shia (as opposed to 12er Shia) – with a (basically) hereditary ruler up till 1962.
Anti predestination (so pro moral responsibility) and quite tolerant – even to non Muslims. And of the four (main) Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence they went for the H. School (again I can not pronounce the word correctly) – holding such things as women showing their feet NOT to be criminal conduct, and allowing prayer in other languages than Arabic (if the person doing the praying was ignorant of the Arabic language).
But that was long ago now and I am getting off subject – I must resist the temptation to go off at tangents.
From a libertarian point of view there was a sect of Islam (once a very powerful sect) that held that reason (natural law) should be used to interpret the Koran – that the Koran could not be just treated as the literal word of God (and so on), but it was defeated (indeed crushed) more than a thousand years ago. Although one occasionally finds a supporter (a real supporter – not someone who is pretending) of this sect.
Which is fascinating – well at least for nerds (like myself).
The Sufi tradition tends to be rather different – they stress spiritual feeling (rather than reason), but this can also lead them to a tolerant position (because it means that their stress is also not on the literal text of the Koran – nor on the deeds, the battle plans and so on, of Mohammed).
Sadly the Sufis have been in decline for many years – partly because (and I hope I am not being unkind) they are often not very effective in “this world” as it were.
Perhaps they will be in paradise when political killers (of all sides) are burning in Hell – but here-and-now…….
How many fucking times are you going to type out ‘six million Jews’, what is it with you cultists and this magical number? Jews wouldn’t even be that interesting if so many cucked white idits weren’t obsessed with them.
“The ‘nanny state’ food and smoking police are a big part of the U.S. progressive milieu at present.”
And — so far as I know entirely without exception — C4SS and everyone at it who’s said anything about it — completely oppose both.
If anyone has so much as a shred of evidence to the contrary, please feel free to prevent it, but I doubt anyone does. I know that C4SS has opposed, among other things, Bloomberg’s “large sugary drink ban” and nanny state calls to regulate e-cigs.
Any successful indictment of C4SS — whether on the basis of claims that it is “progressive” or on some other basis — will have to start with true factual claims if for no other reason than that I will, every time, decline to allow false factual claims to go uncontested. IanB’s claim that C4SS supports “public healthism (temperance)” is a false factual claim so far as I can tell. And I CAN tell. This is the second time that it’s come up. Being an easy-going sort of guy, I am of course quite willing to give IanB the rope to either recant/stop making the false factual claim or to continue making it. But the latter course would constitute reasonable evidence that he’s intentionally lying rather than unintentionally mistaken, which would then call his additional claims into question without me having to do the work of refuting them.
Thomas. I was describing the general suite of moral beliefs that comprise the “neo-progressive” worldview. Different Neoprogs emphasise different parts (feminists, environmentalists, etc) and some are very weak on various parts or ignore them entirely. As Keith has already pointed out, C4SS writers tend to have a particular focus e.g. on LGBT.
Just off the top of my head though, Carson has at least once bizarrely claimed that tobacco advertising bans are a deliberate subsidy to the tobacco industry by the State to “save them the costs of advertising”. While this is obviously a desperate attempt to claim that big business is always in cahoots with the State- otherwise the Carson thesis is endangered- I would wager that Carson is at least mildly anti-tobacco. If you can find me an example of him condemning the progressivist attack on tobacco, alcohol and processed foods, I will happily stand corrected.
“If you can prove the opposite of what I’ve claimed instead of insisting that I prove my own claim, I’ll let you.”
There, fixed that for ya.
Ian – I said that in a review of KC. If he said it as well, he was right in his facts.
In the early 1990s, I was involved with FOREST, the smokers’ rights group. At the time, we were furiously opposing calls for an advertising ban. One of our contacts in the tobacco industry, though, told me that his people were beginning to like the idea of a ban. If all the companies were forced to stop at the same time, they would cut costs and freeze market shares. There would be no loss of profit in the short term. Already, for about a decade, the companies had been very happy with a voluntary code of conduct negotiated with the Department of Health. We always put the word voluntary in quotes, to show how sinister the British State was in its regulatory activities. In fact, many of the code’s less comprehensible refinements had been not merely accepted but suggested by the companies.
I cited all this as an instance of cooperation between big business and the State, and as an instance of the short term personal motivations of big business bureaucrats.
I read it directly in one of Kevin’s books. I didn’t keep a note of where, I wish I had done, along with other of his more embarrassing absurdities.
Your description is not surprising, but hardly proof of the thesis. There is a long history of businesses and other organisations foolishly supporting Progressives for perceived short term benefit. This is much the same as the process of the general population being persuaded to hand over their freedom. Probably the majority of our fellows support some degree of economic protectionism on what amounts to the same basic logic. Statists have numerous methods of persuading people to cut their own throats. It doesn’t mean that the people with the cut throats are the drivers. They are not even the useful idiots. They are just the idiots.
Well, never mind what KC may have said. What I will say illustrates a general point about the problem with big business corporations. The personal interests of those temporarily in charge may not be parallel with those of the shareholders or the long term viability of the business. At FOREST, we were continually held back from an all out defence because the tobacco company executives we dealt with didn’t want to be associated with anything too radical when they decided to move within the company or to change to similar positions in another sector.
A more general point arising is that there is often a shared background of social origins and political and economic outlook between the managerial and political class. Men like Alan Sugar and Richard Branson are exceptions, so far as they came from outside the usual class. More commonly, business and political leaders look and are interchangeable. Whatever you think of the wider opinions of people like KC, we should agree with Keith that a scaling back of political control requires a corresponding disestablishment of the corporate bureaucracies. They are not useful idiots – that would be Messrs Sugar and Branson. They are central players in the game of enslaving us. This is the case even when they preside over structures of enterprise – Microsoft, Tesco, BP, etc – that are otherwise our benefactors.
Indeed, they are rather like the Catholic Church in ancien regime Europe. It was a privileged and exploitative institution, riddled with various forms of corruption. At the same time, it provided comfort to millions, and incidentally restrained the civil and military wings of the general system, and checked the emergence of much worse forms of superstition.
One of my own disagreements with KC is that he doesn’t see the benefits of market corporatism. But I fully agree with him and Keith that the corporate bureaucracy is an integral part of the ruling class.
I can understand that attitude from the executives. An all out defence, bringing down the full ire of the State upon them, would be a great risk- an “all or nothing” strategy. As an activist, one might want to risk that. As a non-activist businessman, it would be less appealing. Going up against the State overtly is probably just going to get your arse kicked. Better to proceed cautiously and attempt to appease the State.
I don’t think anyone is being brainwashed. Most people do not understand or care about economics, prefer to be among their own kind, and are deeply resentful of anything that threatens them out of their indolence and comfort, especially when they’re very indolent and very comfortable. What we are witnessing is more about human dysgenics than moustache-twirling by Hillary Clinton. Most people are little shitheads that fear responsibility and spend most of their time worried about what people think, rather than what might actually be true.
“Hell, if you ask Kevin Carson, the government built the roads to give Walmart an ‘unfair advantage over local producers’ and we ought to tear them all up and go back to riding our horses across the prariries or something.”
Now, now, Ian. Haven’t we discussed over and over the fact that it’s not nice to lie about Kevin Carson? You know I’m going to catch you and make you look like an ass in public every time you do it, so why do you do it? Are you some kind of masochist or something?
Carson’s claim that the government built the roads (and railroads, and ports for shipping, etc etc) to enable cheap transportation of goods by big business at the expense of local producers is a major part of his thesis and beyond denial. His claims that Walmart (et al) are major beneficiaries forms a major part of the claims in Organisation Theory.
You claim Carson says X, when in fact he does not. If you want to restate your claim instead of pretending that the initial false claim is in fact a true claim, feel free. I’m not going to do your work for you.
Arguing with Carsonian economics is like arguing with Brainpolice’s ethical non-positions; Carson would have to have a coherent theory before it could be disputed; disputing his crankish asides and Marx-style rambling narratives disguised as ‘theories’ will simply result in some flunky denying, doubling down, and redirecting.
Sorry I missed your reply Mr Preston – I was thinking about other matters.
So you (basically) repeat your false reply to question one. Fair enough, I have noted your position.
And no I do not think thought that Adam Smith thought that businessmen (no matter how corrupt) were the “greatest” enemy of a free market, the deals of businessmen (including deals with the state) can be annoying (very annoying indeed), but they are as nothing to what the state can do. And those who think the state is the tool of the “capitalist class” (or whatever) are wrong.
On question two you do not seem to understand what I am talking about – so some study of the (alleged) Ricardian position on land (developed to its furthest extent by Henry George) and then the refutation of this position by Frank Fetter (supported. much later. by Murray Rothbard and others) would be in order. Basically this the refutation of the “land monopoly” nonsense, that modern collectivists (both followers of the Red Flag and the Black Flag) use as an excuse for their criminal plans (which I think the historical David Ricardo would have been horrified by).
On question three it is hard to see how I could have used more simple language – no I was not just talking about fractional reserve banking (a term I did not even use), I was pointing at any effort to finance lending over and above REAL SAVINGS (I even put it in capital letters – it case the key point was missed) at interest rates decided by lenders (lenders of REAL SAVINGS) and borrowers. Again Rothbard was clear on this – and I am not shy of attacking him when he was not clear.
It is difficult (given how straightforward the question, question three, was) not to draw the conclusion that you are being deliberately obtuse (not in innocent error).
I didn’t address the specifics of your latter two questions because they’re not questions that I have any specific position on. I’m a historian, sociologist, and political theorist, not an economist. Therefore, I have no qualifications for or interest in arguing for or against the position of Fetter vs. Ricardo (or George) concerning land value theory.
My inclination is to argue that land is a commodity like anything else, and its value represents nothing more than the subjective or relative value assigned to it by individuals. I’m generally skeptical of Henry George’s proposal concerning the “single tax” (because I’m skeptical of taxes generally), though I have no particular objection to the existence of colonies or intentional communities founded on the model of George’s theories.
Likewise, my position on credit and monetary policy is that central banking should be eliminated entirely and that the issuing of currency should be done by private entities and local communities. Beyond that, I have no specific opinion on what the most optimal policies in these areas might be.
In other words, I am agnostic concerning both of your questions.
As for the Welfare State being just a “pittance” (I forget who made the point – but is in the thread somewhere – at least I think it is, my apologies if I am remembering the point from someone else).
The vast majority of government spending, in all major Western countries, is now on the expanding Welfare States (such things as the military being a declining share of the economy for some 50 years or more). And NO the Welfare States were not created at the request of (or in the interests of) the “capitalist class” or “big business”.
“The vast majority of government spending, in all major Western countries, is now on the expanding Welfare States (such things as the military being a declining share of the economy for some 50 years or more).”
That’s true in Europe but not in the USA: http://www.warresisters.org/federalpiechart
But when we talk about “welfare” states, that includes quite a bit of ground, ranging from corporate subsidies, to funding the public sector bureaucracy, to middle class entitlements, to subsistence payments for the poor. The latter category is a “pittance” in the U.S. “welfare state.” But it’s not really appropriate to group all public spending under one broad category of the “welfare state” without any kind of analysis of what this massive enterprise is actually providing.
Most government spending (Federal, State and local) in the United States is on health, education and income support (pensions and so on) what is known as the Welfare State.
So unless we are going to get into some sterile game (such as the game of pretending that the Frankfurt School died out a 120 years ago – when, in reality, Marcuse and some of rest of the cultural Marxist gang were around as late as the1960s and led directly to the present P.C. stuff, on race, gender, sexuality, in the search of new victim groups – the traditional “Working Class” having “failed” the Revolution in post World War One Germany) we had better accept that.
Or are we going to carry on (for example) playing the Kolko game that the followers of Richard Ely (such as “Teddy” Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) served “the rich” or “capitalist big business”. We could even extend this game (if we had no regard for truth what-so-ever) to pretend that the random changes of policy in the 1930s (the New Deal chaos – which paralysed invest even of most of the largest companies) were also for the benefit of “big business” generally And then we can declare that the Moon is made of green cheese (and on and on).
Even if we are just talking about the FEDERAL government – most spending is on the health, education and income support stuff, It did not use to be (as late as the Kennedy Administration it was not) but is true now.
As for defence – its share of the economy has been in decline for many decades.
On subsidies to the rich……
The biggest example of that that I can think of is the expansionist monetary policy of the Federal Reserve (and the other Central Banks) – that is NOT the intention (J.M. Keynes and the others were not exactly friends of “the rich”, although they were happy to be well off themselves), but it is the result – as Richard Cantillon (and others) have been pointing out since the 1700s.
A monetary expansion is not neutral – even after the boom-bust has worked itself out. Some people are better off than they would have been had there been no monetary expansion, and some people are worse off than they would have been had there been no monetary expansion – and it works out that the people who tend to be benefit (in the end) are…… and the people who tend to lose (in the end) are……… That is the history of much of Latin America – and it is not even a zero sum game, it is a negative sum game. Although a few people gain (even in the long term) – the losses are greater than the gains (most people are hit more than the few who benefit, in the long term, are helped).
That is the final irony. Monetary expansion (the idea that lending can be from other than REAL SAVINGS – that thrift, hardwork and self denial are not necessary) is always sold (often quite sincerely sold) as for the benefit of the poor – when it is actually the poor (in the end) who are hurt most by it. They are not the only ones hurt (a lot of wealthy people are, in the end, hit hard also – unless they are directly connected to where the new money first comes out), but the poor are hit most of all.
Odd that you do not seem top attack the low interest rate (now basically a no interest rate policy).
I have given you plenty of chances to do so.
Still, I have (in a way) got my three answers.
No understanding that Progressive policies on government spending, high taxation, and regulation) are not for the benefit of most business enterprises (including not for the benefit of most large business enterprises).
No understanding that Frank Fetter refuted David Ricardo (or rather the left interpretation of Ricardo) on land – so talk of an evil “land monopoly” is nonsense (and the justification of the criminal plans of Red Flag people and Black Flag people falls away).
And no understanding that all lending should be from REAL SAVINGS at interest rates agreed by lenders and borrowers.
Do you generally accept the Austrian business cycle theory? Why or why not?
Btw, I agree with your criticisms of the Frankfurt School and “cultural Marxism.” It’s interesting being a libertarian who deviates to the right on social and cultural matters, and deviates to the left on economic matters.
Part of the reason I posted your discussion with Paul Gottfried is that I largely agree with his analysis; in particular that Lind’s description of Culutral Marxism is somewhat misplaced. Gottfried’s description of PC as being like “degenerate Calvinism” is in my view bang on the money. Because I think it basically is degenerate Calvinism.
I suspect PC is a hybrid of different historical, ideological, and cultural currents. Marcuse’s concept of “repressive tolerance” is certainly a part of PC, but I think Gottfried is right in that it’s also partly traceable to secularized puritanism. I think another strand that influenced the development of PC in the West was Maoist ideology imported from China by Western Leftists during the era of the Cultural Revolution. The phrase “politically correct” first starts to appear in radical leftist rhetoric during the late 60s/ early 70s Weathermen/Black Liberation era. Many of those groups had a Maoist orientation.
The success that Maoism and Cultural Marxism had is probably attributable in large part to the existing hybrid of Protestant and liberal-secular ideology that went back to pre-Revolutionary times. Likewise re: Jews, if Christianity and liberalism didn’t have the particular historical tendencies and relationship it does then the ‘Israel lobby’ would be no more influential than the ‘China lobby’, it’s precisely because of Christianity and its ripple-effects that Jews are so important not just materially by to the psyche of the West.
I have just seen your latest reply Mr Preston.
O.K. so you believe that land is a commodity and that its economic value is subjective – so do I.
A truthful answer – to a question I did not ask (I know that way of answering a questioner – it is a old method. but a good one). Thus you can avoid answering the actual question on land.
Ditto your answer to the question I did not ask about Central Banking. A good approach to avoiding answering the question on real saving.
Training can only go so far – someone has to have the ability (and the application) to be trained. You have done well and I commend you – and I am not being sarcastic.
If you are self trained – I commend you even more.
Paul, I am curious as to what you would think of this list of policy prescriptions by Kevin Carson. I know you don’t like Carson, and I know what you would probably say about the entries on landlordism and syndicalism, but what would you say about the rest of this piece:
http://attackthesystem.com/a-political-program-for-anarchists/
You may appreciate this critique of the Kolko thesis that was published by the Independent Instittute:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_17_04_05_bradley.pdf
I suppose the difference between us, and this is a point of contention that I share with many orthodox libertarians, is that political and economic power cannot be separated from each other in the way that libertarians seems to imagine. Wealth=Status=Power. This is basic history, political science, and sociology, and whatever assessment one wants to make of issues pertaining to economic technicalities, there’s simply no refuting this basic insight.
I’m not siding with the Marxists here. I agree that states have unique powers that other institutions do not, but states do not exist in a vacuum that is independent of other institutions or sources of power in the wider society. I would suggest that having a state is that value neutral to the wider economy and sets of cultural values is impossible.
I actually think right-libertarians and left-libertarians get it wrong on some of these questions. Right-libertarians do not seem to appreciate the degree to which abusive power can exist outside the realm of the state, and become intertwined with the state. Left-libertarians do not seem to understand that outgroups frequently become just as abusive as the former ingroups they replace once they become powerful. Society is basically a collection of individuals and groups striving for power for the sake of their own interests: material, physical, psychological, emotional, ideological, cultural, religious, spiritual, racial, ethnic, territorial, etc. The core libertarian question in my view is how do we maintain a reasonable balance of power between all of these contending interests, while keeping an oppressive state from forming (see Hobbes).
I should have pointed out that the “modern” (actually it can be traced back to the 1930s) term that Frankfurt School Marxists tend to favour is “Critical Theory” – this is the old effort (in modern dress) to “unmask” hostile forms of economics, political thought and philosophy as serving the interests of “the rich”, “big business”, “the corporations”, “the landowners” (and on and on).
However, sometimes the enemy (no matter how intelligent and well trained) make a slip and use the term “Capital” in this context – saying (for example) that the American Progressive policies of the early 1900s (such as the introduction of Corporation Tax in 1909 and the Federal Income Tax in 1913) were in the interest not of “the corporations” or “the rich”, but of “Capital” – it was this slip that I noticed in Mr Preston’s post. Someone who says that the Progressive American policies of the early 1900s were in the interests of (say) “big business” may just be innocently wrong (perhaps making the mistake of actually believing what socialist historians, such as G. Kolko, write – in their efforts to deceive the unwary), someone who says that Progressive policies were in the interests of “Capital” has made a nasty slip (he or she might as well have a big neon sign saying “I am a baddie” above their head)..
This is in no way showing contempt for Mr Preston – everyone (no matter how intelligent or well trained – or self taught) makes slips from time to time. And I am sure that he will be careful not to make the same slip in future.
However, (like the boring old nerd I am) I still went through the drill.
Question One.
Do you accept that American Progressive policies hurt most business enterprises (including most large business enterprises) more than they helped?
The answer was negative (no surprise there – if the answer was positive the whole Black Flag – Red Flag alliance collapses, as does their justification for envy and planned lootiing).
Question Two.
Do you accept that Frank Fetter refuted David Ricardo (or, at least, the left interpretation of Ricardo) on land?
The answer there was an elegant dodge – which I was impressed by.
Question Three.
Do you accept (like Rothbard) that all lending should be from REAL SAVINGS?
The answer was a series of elegant dodges – which, again, I was impressed by.
As for Sean Gabb…..;
Dr Gabb knows all the above (as well as I do) – but he pretends he does not.
Ditto Sean Gabb on Kevin Carson.
Mr Preston has just written a comment in which he uses the term “economic power” and claims that it can not be separated from political power.
Perhaps we should ask what “economic power” is. Definition, anyone?
I think Bertrand Russell had a very good analysis of the different kinds and sources that exist in societies, and his outlook continues to hold up very well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power:_A_New_Social_Analysis
And Max Weber:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-component_theory_of_stratification
And C. Wright Mills:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Elite
And William Domhoff:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/four_networks.html
And elite theorists generally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory
None of these theories of power have anything to do with Marxist reductionism. In fact, some of the thinkers mentioned or referenced above were explicitly anti-Marxist.
Economic power is the ability to influence or control the actions or circumstances of others by economic means.
Well Ian we could ask the new “Nobel” prize winner – who (absurdly) uses the term economic power, and suggests that government regulations should be used against it (as if George Stigler and Milton Friedman and….. had never written a word). He would reply with a lot of mathematics – as modern “economists” tend to hide behind mathematics (as if economics was based on maths – not reason).
Some friends of mine were certain that Israel Kirzner was going to get the Prize this year (he was born in 1930 – it is doubtful that he will live much longer) for his work on the importance of the entrepreneur (note the English language did not really understand this vitally important concept – even as late as the 1911 Concise Oxford Dictionary, the word is defined as “an organiser, especially of musical entertainments” OUCH), but I had to warn them there was no chance.
The establishment has closed ranks – they will not allow thought that argues for more respect for private property, for smaller and more limited government (what KC would call “vulgar” libertarianism) although they have no problem with the state being renamed “the people” (the old Marxist trick – the state would “wither away” in the final stage of Communism, just as it is also an old Black Flag trick, indeed the con goes back to Rousseau).
The Tides Foundation (and so on) is not motivated by financial concerns. People like Mrs Heinz-Kerry and Mr George Soros (and so many others – as is often the case the Dems are outspending their foes and the media look the other way) do not subsidise the left (both the Red Flag and Black Flag groups) via organisations such as the Tides Foundation because they think that doing so will make them richer – they really believe (or PARTLY) believe in this stuff – they are ashamed of being rich, and think that paying money to the enemies of “the rich” somehow cleanses their souls……
And people who are openly NOT ashamed of being rich (such as two brothers from Kansas) are targets of special hatred (often, indirectly, financed by people who richer than they are).
You are correct Ian – this is a lot older than Karl Marx.
It is very old indeed – it is “the spell of Plato”. It dominates the education system (especially the academy – logically enough). and the media (especially the entertainment media).
Would I really care if people like Kevin and Keith looted people such as Mrs Heinz Kerry and Mr George Soros (and all the rest of the rich radical-chic crowd) and then torn them to pieces? Which they may well do at some point (“gratitude is an emotion felt by dogs” as Joe Stalin put it).
Well I should care – but I would rather not take a polygraph test on the matter.
By way of information to onlookers (I generally don’t try to discuss things “with” Marks — see Heinlein on teaching pigs to sing), no, Carson does not define “vulgar libertarianism as “thought that argues for more respect for private property, for smaller and more limited government.”
“Vulgar libertarianism” refers to treatment of actual economic events in actual non-free markets AS IF they had occurred within hypothetical free markets.
From my reading of Carson, “vulgar” libertarianism refers to basically any libertarian who he considers on the “right”, which is everybody to the right of Chairman Mao. And since by the C4SS definition, every economic transaction in an unfree market is inherently tainted, we end up at the position that me popping out the shops an hour ago to get a jar of coffee and being glad that Patel sells my favourite brand, is “vulgar” libertarian, as is Patel himself a “vulgar capitalist” and so on and on.
Ian,
“Vulgar libertarian” is a term with a specific meaning. And if you’ve actually read Carson, you know that that specific meaning is not what you’re pretending it is. I was just making sure everyone else knows that too.
This moralistic anti-elitism is what drives their murderous campaigns for ‘land reform’. i.e. class war and anti-kulakism; whether in its Maoist or other guises this view seems ‘unfree’ relations as a magical taint. Whereas Mises would just let aristocrats lose their land to the market through mismanagement these Anarcho-Maoists would be raping and pillaging the countryside because they believe Aristocrats run on liquified oppression of generations or some insanity like that. Not only ‘unfree’ outcomes must be prevented, but anything with a trace of ‘unfree’ labor or whatever is to be destroyed. C4SS and left-anarchists are fundamentally at war with history and civil society, they want to revert to a primitive barbarism where everyone is ‘free’ to be nobody.
Footnote: Webster’s Revised 1913 on-line edition gives this:
Entrepreneur (Page: 498)
En`tre*pre*neur” (?), n. [F. See Enterprise.]
(Polit. Econ.) One who creates a product on his own account; whoever undertakes on his own account an industrial enterprise in which workmen are employed. F. A. Walker.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=entrepreneur&use1913=on
Webster’s was an American dictionary. I wonder if the usages were different in the “two countries separated by a common language.” Note that 1911 precedes 1913 by only two years.
Thomas, Kevin (as you know well) treats any real libertarian (i.e. anyone who opposes him and his collectivist crew) as a “vulgar” libertarian. Kevin is no more a friend of (say) Joshua Wedgewood in the 18th century than he is of Jon Huntsman (senior) or Charles and David Koch now – and state interventions X,Y,Z, have nothing to do with the matter. He hates them because they are rich – in his world they would be looted and killed (period). This is what his support for “Social Justice” and the mob (whether it is the “Occupy” mob in the United States, or the mob as far away as Egypt with their demands for free bread and so on) is all about.
Even in the early 1900s it was a stretch to think that the Federal government (with its new Corporation Tax and then Income Tax, and its attacks on Standard Oil and J.J. Hill’s Great Northern Railroad…. and on and on) was ruling for the benefit of “big business” – today (at a time when the United States has some of the highest company taxation in the Western World and executives can be sent to prison for what would be considered clerical errors in other countries) it is utterly impossible for anyone, other than an utter-and-complete-moron, to hold that the United States government is ruling for the benefit of “big business”, “the landowners” (what like the ones who are hit by “Civil Rights” crap on the border?), “the capitalists”, “the corporations”, or the old Marxist standby term “capital”.
I do NOT believe that Kevin is an utter-and-complete-moron – he does not really believe this stuff about how government policy is for the benefit of “big business” (that, say, the EPA is the secret friend of the coal industry or manufacturing in general, or whatever), it is all an act – a pose. The plan is simple – convince people that wealth is not legitimate (that is the result of government interventions X,Y,Z) in order to justify looting said wealth, and killing anyone who resists (and, most likely, killing anyone who does NOT resist as well).
Ian – sometimes it is fear (especially when the regulations and taxes directly hit their own business – protest and the EPA and IRS and so on will make it WORSE) on the part of business executives, but sometimes they really believe (or half believe) this stuff. Remember they go through the education system and they experience the same media.
For a businessman (obsessed with the day-to-day work) it is all too easy to just take the dominate ideas of his time as true – to not question them (even to give financial support to people who would force feed him his own children – after all they are not likely to openly tell him they are going to do that).
Most people do not think very much about political principles – they are told that so-and-so “cares about the poor” and this seems nice, so off the cheque goes……….
And even if the businessman looks (a bit) into what the local schools and universities are teaching, they will tell him that they are just against corrupt businessmen, who make nasty deals with government – and that seems like something one should be against (and IT IS something one should be against), so the businessman or businesswoman (even if they consider themselves a “moderate conservative” politically) goes back to sleep again – or rather goes back to work again.
If one tries to warn people one (not the collectivists) looks crazy – because it is all so insane. As Andrew Breitbart used to say “who could come to California [or America generally] after World War II look around at all the wonders, and then say to themselves – I AM GOING TO HELP DESTROY ALL THIS” that is exactly what the Frankfurt School P;C. (or Critical Theory – or whatever term is fashionable this week) people did say to themselves – and they found plenty of Americans (from OTHER traditions of collectivism) to help them.
It is like Tolkien’s Sauron coming to Numenor ……
“And Sauron passed over the sea and looked upon the land of Numenor, and on the city of Armenelos in the days of its glory, and he was astounded: but his heart within was filled the more with envy and hate”.
But try and warn people and you will be denounced as having an “Authoritarian Personality” or being part of the “Paranoid Style in American Politics” – or just be thought crazy.
Like the man at the end of the original “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” film (the writer of that film had a message he was trying to slip past the cultural elite, by putting it in a fantasy setting – remember how hard it was to even get Hayek’s “The Road To Serfdom” published in the United States the cultural establishment tried hard to stop it being published) – screaming at the car drivers.
Or the left (Marxist and non Marxist) may just get lazy – and throw the P.C. words “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobe” at you (almost at random).
I do find it fascinating that IanB and Marks love to argue so vociferously with the Kevin Carson of their imaginations, when there’s plenty to argue with in the REAL Kevin Carson.
Offhand, I consider Carson’s biggest failing to be his insistence on sticking to a Labor Theory of Value. The even worse error within that major failing is his attempt to “fix” the problems with LTV by adding a “subjectivist” element. The LTV is irredeemable garbage and trying to bolt other elements onto it to make the Rube Goldberg machine “work” is a fool’s errand.
But no, instead of criticizing the real faults of the real Kevin Carson, IanB and Marks create a straw man and try to set it on fire. Then when I point out that Carson doesn’t say what they say he says, they try to change, by sheer force of “if I wish hard enough, it must be true,” what he says into what they want him to say.
It would be at least mildly funny if it didn’t create extra work for me, trying to make sure that onlookers who haven’t read their Carson and who don’t know about the rich fantasy lives of IanB and Marks don’t get drawn into those fantasies.
Mr Preston seems to have forgotten the rule “when you are in a hole, stop digging” when it comes to “economic power”.
And as with his (false) claim that most American government spending is not on the Welfare State functions (the Bismark education, health and income support, such as pensions, stuff) – just writing in computer “links” does not make the false not false.
It is indeed true that government taking on the education of most people (as with Frederick the Great of Prussia) or the health and old age pensions of most people (as with Bismark – and neither Frederick the Great or Bismark was a tool of the “capitalists”, or governed in the interests of the “capitalists”) does NOT automatically mean that most government spending is on these things (under Bismark the share of German government spending on Welfare State functions was actually quite small – these things always start off quite small) – indeed even as late as the Kennedy Administration most Federal government spending in the United States was NOT on these things. But IT IS now – and no amount of computer “links” can change this. This is what is know as the “entitlement crises” (which exists in most Western countries now).
Just as no amount of computer “links” change the basic fact that using the term “economic power” is (at best) very silly indeed.
As for the general matters of this thread – actually I think what I have just typed on the “Marxist Feminist” thread is also relevant here.
So there is no point in my typing it out again.
But, by the way Thomas, when both Ian and myself have actually quoted Kevin (and in context) you have called us both “liars” anyway.
This is my last comment on this thread – Thomas can carry on calling people “liars” and “pigs” (the Heinlein thing), here to his heart’s content.
I repeat that my comments on the other thread (the “Marxist Feminist” thread) are relevant to matters here also – but I think I have said all I want to there also.
What matters to me is NOT whether someone says they are against “the state” or not (as with the “Centre For A Stateless Society”) – it does not matter to me if the looters call themselves “the people” rather than “the state” and follow a Black Flag rather than a Red Flag.