If you venture to Oswald Mosley's website, the initial impression might not scare you. Read what he has to say, and it won't scare you either, until you start looking at the "corners" the dark edges and begin noticing. Isn't that charming man striking a pose that resembles someone familiar from history books?
http://www.oswaldmosley.com/people/sorel.htmlI went to his site looking for something on the writer/propagandist Georges Sorel. You see I'm reading about Fascism. You know, Mussolini, Hitler -- Ah that is who Mosely resembles! Now I remember the fellow who was a vegetarian and loved children and animals. He only gassed people. What you don't know probably are the thinkers behind these people. Thinkers? I thought these folks were only brutes. You know the kind: "Ve haf vays to make you Talk!" made famous by Indiana Jones and other great B movies. But yes, there were thinkers. And God I'm sorry I did not know just how subtle these thinkers are. Read Mosely and you might start thinking that he's right and Churchill and Chamberlain were fools for not listening to him. Heck I've heard that kind of talk before, from the Op-Ed pages and the TV talking heads. The line of reasoning that goes the "Communists were our real enemies." Hitler only wanted to rule his "territory in Europe" he was never a threat to the US or Britain. Have you heard these people. Now I'm scared. You see, you have to look at the edges.
Mosely claims to have nothing against the Jews, yet he promotes several books of revisionist history that attack Israel or make the case that the Holocaust was Zionist propaganda. Interesting. The edges you see. His website is classic fascism.
Now why does one have to look at the edges? What is it about these dictators, these monsters, that made them so seductive. For that you have to understand something else. And that is the conscious use of myth that is at the heart of Fascism. And for that you have to read about Georges Sorel.
"Georges Sorel stated his theory of "social myths" most clearly in a letter to Daniel Halevy in 1907."
He was a forrunner of the science of propaganda and that in turn was the father of the science of Marketing. Is it any wonder that the best practitioners of both arts can go from politics to selling soap and back again? Today's post has an article about such a person; Ben Goddard. A man to admire for his business acumen. He could sell the Chamber of Commerce, or he could demogague "Harry and Louise" and marry Louise. Such people are disciples of Sorel. Sorel had an interesting and illuminating thesis:
".....Men who are participating in a great social movement always picture their coming action as a battle in which their cause is certain to triumph. These constructions, knowledge of which is so important for historians, I propose to call myths; the syndicalist "general strike" and Marx's catastrophic revolution are such myths. As remarkable examples of such myths, I have given those which were constructed by primitive Christianity, by the Reformation, by the Revolution and by the followers of Mazzini. I now wish to show that we should not attempt to analyze such groups of images in the way that we analyze a thing into its elements, but that they must be taken as a whole, as historical forces, and that we should be especially careful not to make any comparison between accomplished fact and the picture people had formed for themselves before action."
So, here we come back to my beloved Lotus Sutra. Here is a man who understands "upaya", skillfulness. But not in any moral enlightened manner, but more in the manner in which Devadatta understood "Upaya". Because the skillfulness to tell stories, to create and manipulate myths, can be used for good or ill. In the case of fascists this power is used for ill. As a Buddhist said about Devadatta he mastered "upaya" before he mastered the eightfold chain of causation and the morality play that is life. And Fascism is built on the consciousness that much of religion is based on "myth" and that myths can be built just as easily of self serving lies as of visions of a better tomorrow. Sorel Went on:
"I could have given one more example which is perhaps still more striking: Catholics have never been discouraged even in the hardest trials, because they have always pictured the history of the Church as a series of battles between Satan and the hierarchy supported by Christ; every new difficulty which arises is only an episode in a war which must finally end in the victory of Catholicism."
Yet this example. The very fact that he chose it as his example, explains why Fascism has been such a pernicious influence. The setting of the world into "black and white;" "modeling it" as an eternal battle between Satan and Christ, in and of itself is "empty" -- it could have been used and has been used as a model for self-control, self-improvement, and efforts to improve society. But as he indicates when he casts the battle as a battle involving the "hierarchy of Christ" it was often turned into the thinnest of rationalizations for wholesale butchery and torture. From medieval times to Torquemada. From the reformation to the Counter-reformation. And in it's most recent times in the actions of the Iberian Fascists who created dictators that were wholly Catholic wholy devoted to this paradigm. And yet Sorel was one of their inspirations. They had to have read his words. They knew that on some level they were killing people for myths. The number of the beast is 666 and 666 is the shape of hierarchy.
"In employing the term myth I believed that I had made a happy choice, because I thus put myself in a position to refuse any discussion whatever with the people who wish to submit the idea of a general strike to a detailed criticism, and who accumulate objections against its practical possibility. It appears, on the contrary, that I had made a most unfortunate choice, for while some told me that myths were only suitable to a primitive state of society, others imagined that I thought the modern world might be moved by illusions analogous in nature to those which Renan thought might usefully replace religion. But there has been a worse misunderstanding than this even, for it has been asserted that my theory of myths was only a kind of lawyer's plea, a falsification of the real opinions of the revolutionaries, the sophistry of an intellectual."
I suspect that he was attacked so adamantly by some because they saw the cynicism of his ideas, and by others because what he said resonated with them but was something they wanted to keep secret from their followers. What would it do to find out that the "great" preacher of religion is a disciple of "Sorel" who doesn't believe his own words are literally true? He knows they are "not of this world." Yet for him they are useful myths. It wouldn't do to let people know that the man behind the curtain is not the "Great and Wonderful Oz." That the great head of "Gold" presiding over the masses has feet of clay. "He speaks for God, not himself."
"If this were true, I should not have been exactly fortunate, for I have always tried to escape the influence of that intellectual philosophy, which seems to me a great hindrance to the historian who allows himself to be dominated by it."
What a devious thinker this rogue was! Don't you have to admire his taking the word "historian" to look down on logic and "intellectual philosophy." Yes, he sees the world as it "really is" -- clay to be shaped into a throne for the clever to sit on. In his book he had described the "general strike" as a myth that could advance the cause of the working class by being a "myth" that the masses could readilly buy:
"In can understand the fear that this myth of the general strike inspires in many worthy progressives, on account of its character of infinity, the world of today is very much inclined to return to the opinions of the ancients and to subordinate ethics to the smooth working of public affairs, which results in a definition of virtue as the golden mean; as long as socialism remains a doctrine expressed only in words, it is very easy to deflect it towards this doctrine of the golden mean; but this transformation is manifestly impossible when the myth of the "general strike" is introduced, as this implies an absolute revolution. You know as well as I do that all that is best in the modern mind is derived from this "torment of the infinite"; you are not one of those people who look upon the tricks by means of which readers can be deceived by words, as happy discoveries. That is why you will not condemn me for having attached great worth to a myth which gives to socialism such high moral value and such great sincerity. It is because the theory of myths tends to produce such fine results that so many seek to refute it...."
We pay homage to George Sorel when our politicians put their finger to the wind and use "marketing studies" and "focus groups" to figure out how to vote and preach -- and when Presidents are marketted like Pigs at an auction. He was the first one to identify the power of myth. Of what Nietsche called the "God sized hole" in the hearts of men. And his followers still think that somehow those myths are the ones who will get them to power -- or have used his methods to divine new and more powerful myths; "Supply side," "flat tax", "Ownership economy:"
"As long as there are no myths accepted by the masses, one may go on talking of revolts indefinitely, without ever provoking any revolutionary movement; this is what gives such importance to the general strike and renders it so odious to socialists who are afraid of a revolution...."
How like our current leaders now. Who talk about improving things for the masses and who sit in the halls of power and only complain at election time. Fascists disdained such people and learned how to use them to get and maintain power. All the disciples of Sorel need are general myths that can be accepted by the people. Fascism and totalitarianism worked for his first generation disciples. Now we have our own versions. Islamo-fascism. Shiite flavor or Sunni? Catholic Fascism? "Born again" fascism. Neo Fascism. United states "uniqueness".
"The revolutionary myths which exist at the present time are almost free from any such mixture; by means of them it is possible to understand the activity, the feelings and the ideas of the masses preparing themselves to enter on a decisive struggle: the myths are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act."
But he grasped something that can be positive about myth too. The myth can be the "magic city" that drives people onward towards better things. For every myth of the "Aryan man" there is the myth of the "progressive man." "New Freedoms," "New Societies," "Better days are coming." Myth can feed on what is good inside us, not just the dark hatreds and boiling fears. It can be pan-nationalistic or nationalistic. Yes people love a fight. Groups bond in hatred, but we can abstract those feelings to. They can be a bridge to something better.
"A Utopia is...and intellectual product; it is the work of theorists who, after observing and discussing the known facts, seek to establish a model to which they can compare existing society in order to estimate the amount of good and evil it contains. It is a combination of imaginary institutions having sufficient analogies to real institutions for the jurist to be able to reason about them; it is a construction which can be taken to pieces, and certain parts of it have been shaped in such a way that they can...be fitted into approaching legislation. While contemporary myths lead men to prepare themselves for a combat which will destroy the existing state of things, the effect of Utopias has always been to direct men's minds towards reforms which can be brought about by patching up the existing system; it is not surprising, then, that so many makers of Utopias were able to develop into able statesmen when they had acquired a greater experience of political life."
That is why the dreamer, Reagan could so easily triumph over men who thought they were superior in intellect and reason. One good dream with a positive image is far more powerful to convey a truth than a thousand words and position papers. But Sorel wanted "combat" and combat is what most of his disciples want. Because destroying the "existing state of things" is such an act of violence that it never results in building something better. The dream is one to which the dreamer wakes up with salt in his mouth and ashes on this tongue. It is better to dream dreams that are thought out a bit. That are rooted not just in a cynical judgement of humanity, but also in a vision of something better. Not to play that game of divide and rule, but the game of uniting everyone in broader and broader circles.
"A myth cannot be refuted, since it is, at bottom, identical with the conviction of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is, in consequence, unanalyzable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions. A Utopia, on the other hand, can be discussed like any other social constitution; the spontaneous movements it presupposes can be compared with the movements actually observed in the course of history, and we can in this way evaluate its verisimilitude; it is possible to refute Utopias by showing that the economic system on which they have been made to rest is incompatible with the necessary conditions of modern production."
A myth cannot be refuted, but it can be addressed and channeled. The war between "Christ" and "Satan" can either be seen in unrealistic and negative terms as a war between "them" and "us" or it can be seen for what it is, as a figurative image of the eternal war between our evil and good inclinations. Utopias may be impossible, but myths can be made real inside our hearts and guide us in the real world.
"For a long time Socialism was scarcely anything but a Utopia; the Marxists were right in claiming for their master the honor of bringing about a change in this state of things; Socialism has now become the preparation of the masses employed in great industries for the suppression of the State and property; and it is no longer necessary, therefore, to discuss how men must organize themselves in order to enjoy future happiness; everything is reduced to the revolutionary apprenticeship of the proletariat. Unfortunately Marx was not acquainted with facts which have now become familiar to us; we know better than he did what strikes are, because we have been able to observe economic conflict of considerable extent and duration; the myth of the "general strike" has become popular, and is now firmly established in the minds of the workers; we possess ideas about violence that it would have been difficult for him to have formed; we can then complete his doctrine, instead of making commentaries on his text, as his unfortunate disciples have done for so long."
Marxism developed powers, because it harnessed new "myths" that spoke to people's hearts. In so doing it antagonized the bearers of older myths. And those new myths in the end proved no more satisfying than those older myths.
And if the Utopia never arrives:
"In this way Utopias tend to disappear completely from Socialism; Socialism has no longer any need to concern itself with the organization of industry since capitalism does that...."
Myth may be power, but it is the power of illusion. Unless the "palaces" described actually become reality at some point, myth can only disillusion it's believers. If Jesus never comes, if Satan always wins, then only death can restart the match. And people grow tired of living in illusions. It's hard to dream on an empty stomach.
"People who are living in this world of "myths," are secure from all refutation; this has led many to assert that Socialism is a kind of religion. For a long time people have been struck by the fact that religious convictions are unaffected by criticism, and from that they have concluded that everything which claims to be beyond science must be a religion. It has been observed also that Christianity tends at the present day to be less a system of dogmas than a Christian life, i.e., moral reform penetrating to the roots of one's being; consequently, new analogy has been discovered between religion and the revolutionary Socialism which aims at the apprenticeship, preparation, and even reconstruction of the individual -- a gigantic task...."
The first phase of waking up is to recognize the myths for what they are
"...by the side of Utopias there have always been myths capable of urging on the workers to revolt. For a long time these myths were founded on the legends of the Revolution, and they preserved all their value as long as these legends remained unshaken. Today the confidence of the Socialists is greater than ever since the myth of the general strike dominates all the truly working-class movement. No failure proves anything against Socialism since the latter has become a work of preparation (for revolution); if they are checked, it merely proves that the apprenticeship has been insufficient; they must set to work again with more courage, persistence, and confidence than before; their experience of labor has taught workmen that it is by means of patient apprenticeship that a man may become a true comrade, and it is also the only way of becoming a true revolutionary. (July 15, 1907)"
Unless we understand that they are myths and that their preachers don't believe their myths any more than the opponants of those preachers do. Those "myths" threaten our lives.
http://www.oswaldmosley.com/people/sorel.html
Chris
The Intelligence bill, which had been passed by both houses but was in conference, was defeated by last hour savaging by the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, and The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. This was a naked power move on their part, as all their stated reasons for last hour opposition had already been addressed. They showed they simply don't want reform. If the President is half hearted about reviving the bill that indicates that he is two faced on this as well. It's his own administration, his own allies in the party and his own people who blocked it in the first place.
I hope the President is serious about reviving it because it's basic reforms are undoubtedly a good thing for the country. I know that genuine democrats Like Senator Levine worked very hard to make sure that it was genuine reform and that it continued various affirmations of human rights and protection of our rights that were much needed. I hope those weren't removed in conference.
We have had multiple intelligence failures recently. If this bill passes it will be further proof that the intelligence is failing where the Buck is supposed to stop.
Of course what I didn't know is that there was more potential for human rights abuse built into this bill. But what can we do? Reforms were needed. And of course we'll have to reform the reforms!
In Today's Washington Post is a review of two books by Richard A Clarke. One book is "What we Owe Iraq" (War and the Ethics of Nation Building by Noah Freedman. And the other is "Banking on Baghdad" by Edwin Black. The review is worth reading in and of itself. It explains some of why the "war on Terrorism" so far has been so thoroughly botched. Clark talks about the "four layers" of Islamic Jihadism.
1. Al Qaeda itself -- which has receded to have a kind of "symbolic, spiritual and idealogical role" in the greater Jihadist movement. Has become an "inner circle" -- the seed of the movement.
2. The various Jihadist 'Al Qaeda related' groups -- many of which -- like that of Zarqawi are even more radical than Al Qaeda.
3. The Jihadist believers. Those who believe and more or less support the Jihadist cause -- and are legion in number.
4. The larger Moslem community.
The third and fourth groups should be the target of a rational "cold war" strategy, because they are too numerous to be physically overwhelmed. They provide the "physical and operational independence" -- transcending borders not just of Arab nations and Moslem nations, but also extending to the huge diasporah Moslem community in the West, for the first two groups.
Richard notes "American's also don't quite grasp how dangerous the Iraq misadventure is. One key to the overall U.S. response to the Jihadist threat is to understand how U.S. Actions affecting one of these four concentric circles affect the others. Supporting a democratically illegitimate government in Iraq or conducting counterinsurgency operations there that kill significant numbers of civilians may eliminate many Al Qaeda members -- but also generate sympathy for Al Qaeda and Jihadists throughout the Moslem world. That would draw members from the outer circles into the inner ones, giving terrorist organizations better logistical resources, fresh recruits and more money. The lines between the inner and outer circles are also the frontlines of the war of ideas, and the United States needs to pay close attention to how its actions affect the movement among them."
"The hard reality is that the U.S. presence in Iraq makes it extraordinarilly difficult for Washington to contribute successfully to the battle of ideas within the Islamic World."
This is a depressing thought.
John Maynard Keynes was a great Economicist. But his challenging of the dogma of his day was not popular with businessmen and is still not popular with their spokesmen in economics and Government. Worse, he's been ill served by his successor economicists, from Milton Friedman to more recent ones. The result is that some people who are confused about economics project their confusion onto him. Which is a real shame because the kind of "Keynes" they set up and knock down is a strawman Keynes who has nothing to do with the real life economicist and his solid theories. His theories were describing the why of a phenomenom of his times. Great Depressions. His explainations are uncomfortable to libertarian and libertine laissez faire capitalists who feel that the "invisible hand" of God drives the economy and gives them license to pillage and steal from the rest of us -- and no responsibility.
In order to tar him they have to thoroughly misrepresent him and then "knock down" that representation. In the process they are advancing theories that he already discussed and explained why they won't work. But never let that stop them from going full steam forward anyway. Somehow these people manage to dominate some quarters of economic discussions. I don't know how they do it. Their economics is "pseudo-economics."
First Keyne's was not a "Keynesian." His theory is much maligned for attacking the assumptions of the "Sayes" law:
"The paradox of Say's Law is thus that capital, the "supply side," is
the only real means of improving the human condition -- both the
capital to create new production and the capital to create greater
productivity -- while "social" spending or regulation to artificially
promote demand through high wages, the "demand side," can easily
produce, or perpetuate, widespread poverty and misery. Thus the
Soviet Union reproduced the economic poverty as well as the political
privilege of a mediaeval state, even as Herbert Hoover and Franklin
Roosevelt, with glowing rhetoric about the common man, lodged the
wealthiest nation in history in a full decade of unprecedented
unemployment. The mythology of the New Deal and the Keynesian
rejection of Say's Law still distort American politics and
economics."
What this author says distorts what Keynes was talking about and sets
up the strawman that he completely rejected Says law, leading to the
conclusion that Keynesianism and Roosevelt "caused" the nation to
remain in unemployment for the period of the Great Depression. He
also ignores the role of the Smoot Harley Act, international economic
weakness and most of the real main causes of the Depression in his
analysis. But I don't want to digress to attacking my pet subject
(bogus current economic theories).
Says Law is true most of the time.
"Say's law, that the aggregate demand price of output as a whole is
equal to its aggregate supply price for all volumes of output, is
equivalent to the proposition that there is no obstacle to full
employment. If, however, this is not the true law relating the
aggregate demand and supply functions, there is a vitally important
chapter of economic theory which remains to be written. (p. 26)"
Keynes didn't deny the long term truth of Says law under most
conditions. But he did critique it:
http://www.worldandi.com/public/1988/may/mt7.cfm
"Keynes realized that investment may not respond to declining
interest rates during a depression. The decision to invest may be
influenced as much by the mood of the times, and by expectations
about the future, as it is by the interest rate. He wrote:"
"[T]here is the instability due to the characteristic of human nature
that a large proportion of our positive activities depend on
spontaneous optimism rather than on mathematical expectation, whether
moral or hedonistic or economic. Most, probably, of our decisions to
do something positive… can only be taken as a result of animal
spirits--of a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and
not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits
multiplied by quantitative probabilities."
"…Thus if the animal spirits dim and the spontaneous optimism
falters, enterprise will fade and die."
During "recessions" one of the things that drives the recession is
that investor money "dries up." It dries up for multiple reasons. One
of those reasons is that investors are simply not stupid. Who is
going to invest in a company that is going to lose money for the next
six months to a year, when a cold calculation tells one that holding
on to one's money (putting it in a cookie jar) for a few months will
let one buy the same stocks or businesses or buildings at fire-sale
prices? People make their bets based on expected return, their
estimates of what reality is or will be, not necessarly what it
actually will be.
Right now they are probably putting their money into the very
treasury bills that are being issued to let them do this. That may
turn out to be a mistake.
Perversely, money also dries up because it's "velocity" slows as
Friedman folks would say, or it's "multiplier" (as Keynes described
it) works in reverse. That is every dollar circulated generates
virtual dollars as the dollars go from hand to hand, while money held
back sits idle. If you are rich and there is trouble, you take your
money out of "unsafe" things and put it where you can watch it.
Indeed traditionally during such times rich people would put their
money into Gold, Jewelry, real-estate, Cigarrettes, anything that
would preserve it's value.
But none of these things get investment going again. And as the much
maligned Keynes noted, nothing will get investment going as long
as "capacity" for production is excess, unutilized, and and "over-
capitalized." During the most recent bubble, miles of glass fiber
that had been worth millions was suddenly not even worth recycling.
When the next telecom crises occurs the same thing might happen to
all those miles of assets hanging in the air outside your home.
In depressions, factories sit idle, Hotels become homes for the
homeless or for "urban spelunkers", things that had had value just a
few years before become worthless piles of junk. Investor wealth may
not totally disagree but the "baloon" of apparant wealth shrinks to a
floppy shell of what it once was. Supply side doesn't work under
those conditions. Unless capitol investments are used and put to work
they are worthless. In Argentina people were reduced to bargaining
services because the money supply was useless. In Russia the system
was massively junked because the 'investors' didn't have any desire
to keep the old machines of the Socialist State running, and weren't
willing to invest in replacing them with new machinery.
"Trickle down" only happens if money is directly spent to at least
tide people over until the junk is junked and companies start needing
to buy new material again. If such a crises is looming, borrowing
money to forstall it will only make the inevitable worse when
the "iceberg" hits. This is what happened to Argentina, to Russia,
and is now happening to us. Obsolescence is setting in and we aren't
doing much to prepare for "post-obsolescence" and investors don't
know where to put their money.
Once you understand this, then one can see how Keyne's case fits in with "Say's law." Which is not a law, but a theorum, which applies generally -- in the long run but not necessarilly in the short run. Thus we come back to the sloppy thinking of the first article:
"The paradox of Say's Law is thus that capital, the "supply side," is
the only real means of improving the human condition"
And recognize that this is true in the long run. And that "supply side" capital is more than formal businesses but indeed is the result of the entire font of human effort, ingenuity, and creativity and that in the short run major things can block or prevent Say's law from applying.
" -- both the capital to create new production and the capital to create greater
productivity -- while "social" spending or regulation to artificially
promote demand through high wages, the "demand side," can easily
produce, or perpetuate, widespread poverty and misery."
And again, one can see that the weakness of this logic is that the author is assuming that social spending is artificially stimulating demand and setting up a causality that is not demonstrated. The important thing is that supply and demand for capital be balanced. Artificial prices can dry up capital, but so can artificially high quantities of surplus investment goods and machineery, runs on banks. If people are employed in jobs that generate high valued goods, then high wages are justified. If people are "eating the seed corn" or spending money instead of investing it, then that will perpetuate long term poverty and misery.
The second author notes this in his article:
"In the General Theory, Keynes developed a model of capitalism radically different from that of classical economists. He saw capitalism as inherently unstable and incapable of spontaneously maintaining full employment. According to Keynes, a decline in national income will bring about a decline in the demand for labor. Because of downward wage rigidity, unemployment will persist. With people out of work, the demand for consumption will be low; with business depressed, the demand for investment will be low. As Keynes saw it, the free-market economies of Britain, America, and France could not escape the Depression unless they changed their fiscal policies."
"Keynes advocated a full-scale program of central economic planning. According to his plan, the market should be guided or fine-tuned by government-employed experts. Government policies should be concerned with more than low interest rates and deficit spending--they should also directly influence the levels of private consumption and investment. On controlling consumption, Keynes wrote:"
"'The state will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume partly through its scheme of taxation, partly by fixing the interest rate and partly, perhaps, in others ways. (p. 378)'"
All of which have been "normalization" practices of the Fed and the US since the 40's.
"Believing that capitalism will not automatically turn savings into investment, Keynes contemplated a nationalization of investment. The idea of government control of investment appears throughout the General Theory. He explained:"
"'I expect to see the State, which is in the position to calculate the marginal efficiency of capital-goods on long views and on the basis of general social advantage, taking an ever greater responsibility for directly organizing investment. (p. 164)'"
"I conclude that the duty of ordering the current volume of investment cannot safely be left in private hands. (p. 320)"
"I conceive, therefore, a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment. (p. 378)"
The author then concludes:
"In order to save capitalism from its own destruction and the threat of national socialism, Keynes proposed to give government control of all investment, give it the power to spend more than it took in as taxes, and give it the power to influence private consumption patterns. In short, to save capitalism from socialism, Keynes proposed to socialize capitalism!"
The author misrepresents what Keynes is talking about and what Socialism is in this passage. Effectively Keynes is talking about "regulation." He wanted to somehow get investment efficiently into the "right hands" where it would do the best for society. This is not the same as "socializing capitalism" so much as socializing the public part of capitalism associated with the banking system. Effectively this was implemented without overt socialism by the State when it started World War II and organizations like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and others in order to ensure that ordinary people had the money to buy homes, start small businesses, or attend College. Without these organizations our country never would have managed some 60 years of relative stability compared with it's previous history.
The author goes on quoting: "At the end of the book, he defended his policies as necessary for individual freedom. He stated:"
"Whilst, therefore, the enlargement of the functions of government, involved in the task of adjusting to one another the propensity to consume and the inducement to investment, would seem to a nineteenth-century publicist or to a contemporary American financier to be a terrific encroachment on individualism, I defend it, on the contrary, both as the only practicable means of avoiding the destruction of existing economic forms in their entirety and as a condition of the successful function of individual initiative. (p. 380)"
The author, having set up his "straw" argument then proceeds to demolish it:
"The General Theory is a complex and fascinating work. However, the message that capitalism can only be saved if it is socialized, and that freedom can only be guaranteed if it is taken away, is Orwellian doublespeak at its best. How could a person as brilliant as Keynes have reached such seemingly contradictory conclusions? The answer to this question can be found in what his first biographer and friend, Sir Roy Harrod, called "the presuppositions of Number 6 Harvey Road" (p. 192-93)."
But Keynes was describing a very real reality of his times. To attack his modest proposals for some socialization of investment as "Orwellian" doublespeak is itself Orwellian propaganda. The destitution of workers and the inability of the country to pull out of rescession were not theoretical abstract side effects of the need of the economy to 'adjust' to changing times but were realities that threatened the existence and stability of the state and that the business community was neither inclined to do anything about nor capable of doing anything about. Other economicists, many of who never heard of Keynes, had the same ideas by trial and error. For example Mariner Eccles, who was a New Deal thinker was proposing similar ideas in the thirties, and later "confessed in later years he had not read him except in small extracts." (page 245-246 Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal by William E. Leuchtenberg) The author's own presuppositions are getting in the way of accepting the observations of John Maynard Keynes.
Snoopies Lament
Am I I, or just a figure in my creators eye?
I dance, I sing, I ride dog houses to the sky?
How can you tell me that that is not I?
I will take my case to the supreme court.
Satchel in hand, briefs at the ready,
To argue that all those things you say I don't understand,
Why they are I, are not I an I?
Am I not I, not merely some cartoon on a blank paper?
Do I not kiss wonderfully and wet?
When some lonely maiden closes her eyes?
Do you not miss me when I'm not available in the morning?
I who have never told lies,
and have marched with the birds into the Wilderness.
Have I not outlived my purported Creator?
Dancing on into eternal weekends?
Have I not defeated the Red Baron,
when all others quailed at his feet?
Am I I, or just a figure in my Creators eye?
Do I not come alive in your heart?
Are we not in some way all playing our own part,
in this storyboard they call life?
I don't think you want to erase me.
Indeed You cannot erase me from your heart.
I am reborn in a thousand pages,
I dance in your dreams.
I am an archetype and a soul.
I am more than whole.
And yes even Charlie Brown has more than he knows.
Chris
This poem has something to say about eternity and connectedness.
Goodbye Arafat, a bitter ending to a bitter man.
They named the twin towers Sodom and Gomorrah,
But yours was named Ramallah.
And now you are buried there.
you were not an honest man.
but your fires are still burning in the land.
Your millions of victims still mourn you,
while their millions rest in your bank.
You killed their dreams before you died,
and substituted dreams of salt and ruin,
"The rocks will betray them" you quoted.
And you spread a message of hate,
even as you played the peacemaker.
Though you had your chances to change things,
had you really tried.
Disciple of the Mufti,
Who went to Berlin to pursue his war,
A man who brought the dreams of Hitler,
home to Egypt, to Syria, to Iraq.
A man who was never interested in peace,
A man who wanted only one thing, extermination.
And yet his people loved him.
Your people loved you like they loved him,
when they should have turned their backs in shame.
Instead of seeing you for who you were,
and maybe making you keep your feet in the fire,
they played your cynical games.
For faith, only unbelievers lie,
And the unbelievers teach in the mosques.
While the believers come carrying bombs.
Their handlers bank part of the costs.
And only God in Heaven, or Allah,
mourns their death on high.
He sees all things, your own sages teach.
Do you think 70 virgins are waiting for you?
Did you really think that killing children,
is the way to make the world peaceful and free?
What happened to your conscience,
if not your respect for humanity?
Goodbye Arafat, when you were paid to do good,
you chose to hire assassins instead.
When you were given money for schools,
you filled those schools with hate.
Goodbye Arafat, though for the past week,
I've only been praying that you would soon be dead.
I had once hoped you'd changed, but you didn't,
and now it's way too late.
Koran:
"They attribute to Allah what they hate (for themselves),
and their tongues assert the falsehood that all good things are for themselves: without doubt for them is the Fire, and they will be the first to be hastened on into it! [16:62]"
Jeremiah:
"The prophets prophesy falsely,
and the priests bear rule by their means;
and my people love to have it so:
and what will ye do in the end thereof?"
lamentations:
"Her gates are sunk into the ground;
he hath destroyed and broken her bars:
her king and her princes are among the Gentiles:
the law is no more;
her prophets also find no vision from the LORD."
For the Arabs of Palestine have done this to themselves. And would do to the world worse.
Chris
On one of the replies to my entry "why practice with the SGI" someone compared the SGI to the anti-christ. In this case it was because members pray for material benefit. The fire goes all over the place as people wage similar arguments across the internet and in the "mundane" world. I once participated in these intense battles.
But then it occured to me one day. How do you fight lies that speak inward truth? People join groups like SGI or Fundamentalist Christianity, Islam Judaism, or "New Wave" cults for a reason. The principal trouble they get into is in confusing general principles that are explained using simile, allegory, fables, tall tales, myth and legends, with actual reality. That is especially true for those who get all hot and bothered by hearing the folks flying on their fantasies.
So, how do we deal with demonizing, triumphalist, and deeply confused and twisted cults?
Nichiren would say "Shakubuku." But what is shakubuku? Someone explained that the word means literally "break and subdue" but the literal meaning is also tied up with other meanings. It means more "break" as in breaking something that is already broken, like untwisting a stuck bottle cap or removing a rusty threaded pipe. And the "subdue" means as much an 'inner' discipline as an outward one. The difference between Shakubuku and Shoju (gentle teaching) is more slippery than people then suppose.
To do Shakubuku one has to untwist what is twisted. That takes truth applied in reasonable doses and served with the right examples, similes, parables, and maybe even the language of the people one is talking to. To be able to do that starts with ourselves recognizing what those stories are talking about -- or should be. As Nichiren also says when the body straitens so does the shadow. We can't change our environment by becoming twisted ourselves. And really we don't need to get so twisted up about other people's nonsense anyway. It's our nonsense we need to work on.
If we don't do this, then we risk otherwise worthy enterprises; like the Gakkai, continuing to turn into twisted emmanations (shadows really) of our own [collective] twisted lives.
Maybe if one feels not at any stage of enlightenment it might be worthwhile staying away from what is twisted even a little. I'm starting to feel that way more and more myself. And certainly we don't need to seek out aggravation. Buddhism doesn't tell people that wading into filth will do anything but transfer the filth to oneself. But if one is going to learn about Buddhism, one has to start somewhere. And until the rest of us mature enough, perhaps the Gakkai is a good place to start. I don't mean the Gakkai of the community centers, but the one that you can still find out there in the discussion meetings and local areas. The key is to recognize the difference between what is important -- really -- and what folks sell one as important. And the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren's teachings are important enough so that everyone should study them at least a little and in context.
Once one grasps the general principle, learns to apply these principles rationally and clearly (without attachment), dumps the detritus of attachment to vile or transitory things, and learns to seek the "wisdom" over the surface meaning, and the spirit of the teaching over it's vehicle; one can be around people without fearing that they are the "great satan" or "bringers of doom" or "anti-christ", or whatever. The eschatology becomes a thing to see as an abstract formulation that says that all things must come to an end; Paradise if we collectively do what we should do. Hell if we don't. And the "anti-Christ", three powerful enemies, are eternally real principles conveyed by eternally simplistic stories. When we see others as "being" evil -- we should really examine our own hearts. Why am I so angry?
The only thing that can possibly prevent these methods from working for people is one, and that is clinging to lies. But lies are as self destructive as they are outwardly destructive. They tend to harm the liar eventually. So rather than being afraid of anybody -- let's just fight to make sure that no one pulls the wool over anyone's eyes. That isn't just a religious battle, that is a social and political one. If people are commiting Fraud, harming others, or getting rich at our expense, then we should find a way to make sure they get caught. That takes, Daimoku, not becoming swept up either "pro or con" and waking up. That is all we need to do.
As a Westerner I believe that what goes around definately comes around. But we don't need to be literally tilting at windmills. We need to recognize that the "demon" here is what makes us think those windmills are Giants.
Well Bush won his re-election. Like most Democrats I was stunned. But not as much as I could have been. You see people always prefer the "devil they know, to the devil they don't." And folks like Karl Rove, the late Lee Atwater, Abramoff, and yes George Bush Jr. have been working together as a team since the seventies for those of them who started with Nixon, and since the eighties for those of them who started as Young Republicans or "College Republicans." They have been plotting, working, experimenting, developing an understanding of marketting, psychology, getting lists of invaluable names. Finishing the "Southern Strategy" to where the red now is Republican, Southern, and Prairie, and the Blue is Democrat. Quite a turnabout. They've become the Confederate party of insurrection and patriotism. How they manage that balancing act I don't know. How a group can use such immoral means and then claim to be Moral I don't know. But it's happened before. It was called fascism then. And at least these chaps aren't literally killing Democrats....
In todays Washington Post (November 8, page A23) was an entry from the activities of the College Republicans of the 80's:
"It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently." The groups recruits would memorize this speach: "Democrats are the enemy. Wade into them! Spill their blood!"
When political opponants consider you the enemy and use this sort of language, one can only wonder where the "battle" will end up? Will we go backwards into genuine violent conflict? Will Democrats start being the ones championing the "right to bear arms" and arming to protect themselves from such people?
No, he didn't mean it literally. But he did mean it figuratively. And we Democrats need to wake up. Just calling them names, or assuming that they share our values is not going to defeat them. To defeat them one has to get them to think they've accomplished some of their goals and the rest of their goals are impossible. That requires real argument and real struggle. We need to force them to live up to their values.
As Newt says about the Civil war, when one faces an implacable foe, one has to be equally implacable. One's figurative guns need to be loaded. Statistics, biblical proofs, quotes from sages, examples from history. Not just blather and opinion. It can be done. in the twenty years since I first heard Rush Limbaugh I've found a whole plethora of arguments that poke holes in these "arguments" that republicans have developed. Bad science, bad economics, triumphalism in military strategy, and arrogant morality. The whole thing is a baloon that only works as long as no one is allowed to think.
Let us not get to the point where we have to literally fight. Before a "real" war breaks out, people can be brought to the table and reasoned with -- if one can corner them into doing the right thing. In this last election the Republicans had to appear to behave -- because Democrats were watching. Because they increasingly control the government, we have to watch and be all the more careful. Did they rig voting machines? I don't think so. Merely alleging it is resorting to the same tactics. People should investigate things and find out, not simply spread rumors. They won by using very clever marketing.
Do we believe that everyone should vote? Then we need to explain our beliefs. Clarify them ourselves so that we understand them well ourselves. Do we need to enforce 'equal protection of the law' then we need to do it. But first we need to understand what we are doing and why. And why it is important. Do we think abortion should remain legal? Why? Moral reasons? Legal history? Constitutional reasons? We can't expect to convince everyone. But we do need to convince majorities -- and to do that we need to be convinced ourselves. And that means debate and dialogue to hammer out a clear understanding of what those principles are.
Otherwise the current headache will become a nightmare of recurring dreams of an eventual knock at the door by police.
Chris
The Traits that enabled Fascism to Evolve.
Fascism in Mussolini's hand's was expressed as Totalitarianism. But at it's core it was a more flexible belief than that. By 1934 Mussolini was saying "In the period since 1929 Fascism has changed from an Italian phenomenon to a universal phenomenon." By 1932 Mussolini was providing "secret subsidies to numerous fascistic movements abroad." These "daughter" movements would redefine fascism to suit their country's situations.
The Complete Rule of the Party.
Mussolini explained his Totalitarianism and the roots of this governing philosophy in that essay he wrote in 1932:
"So too the privileges of the feudal system" are of the Past, and "the division of society into Castes...the Fascist conception of authority has nothing to do with such a polity. A party which entirely governs a Nation is a fact entirely new to history, there are no possible references or parallels. Fascism uses in its construction whatever elements in the Liberal, Social, or Democratic doctrines that still have a living value; it maintains what may be called the certainties which we owe to history, but it rejects all the rest – that is to say, the conception that there can be any doctrine of unquestioned efficacy for all times and all peoples."
Fascist authoritarianism was founded on the "party." The original form of government didn't matter. It could have been liberal, social, or Democratic. And in fact, in the Marxist Leninist countries the form could be "communist" and yet still evolve into a Fascist state. The key element was not the outward form of the Government, but the "entire rule" of the nation by the Party.
"Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, Liberalism and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism, and Democracy: Political doctrines pass but humanity remains; and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Right, a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism (Liberalism always signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism, and hence the century of the State. It is a perfectly logical deduction that a new doctrine can utilize all the still vital elements of previous doctrines."
For Mussolini and other Fascists the fundamental purpose of the Party is the gaining and holding of power and authority. Individuals serving the collective needs of the party. His vision of party was as a kind of "army" and a surrogate family. Elements of other thought were to be kept based on whether they were useful and not whether they were "absolute principles." The paradox of absolutism is that it rejects fixed doctrine. This would become important in the "post Mussolini" evolution of fascism, neo-fascism and it's other "daughter" movements. The only necessary commonality for the Fascist is the "will to power" and the "complete rule of the (fascist) party." Everything else is "means." Fascism could express itself in Democracies, monarchies, Communist regimes. All that was needed was party discipline and the "complete rule" of the country. In a speech he gave at the birth of Fascism, on October 22
1922, Mussolini said:
"In the final analysis, what separates us from democracy is our mentality, our method. Democracy holds that principles are fixed, that they are applicable at all times, in all places, in all eventualities. We don't believe that history repeats itself; we don't believe that history follows a hard and fast itinerary; we don't believe that after democracy there must ensue super-democracy! If democracy was useful and profitable for the nation in the nineteenth century, it may well be that in the twentieth century some other political system will give greater strength to the national identity."
Sources for this section are all from "Mediterranean Fascism 1919-1945 by Charles F. Delzell
Fascism as the Bastard Child of Communism.
The Ideological founder of Fascism, Benito Mussolini began as a
Socialist. He was described as an "emotional impulsive type, and
these characteristics cause him to be suggestive and persuasive in
his speeches." Though not everyone thought he was a great orator,
they were moved by this ability to convey sympathy and sentiment. He
also was known for being a superb judge of character. A security
official observing him after his break with Socialism noted
that "there was no one who understood better how to interpret the
spirit of the proletariat and there was no one who did not observe
his apostasy with sorrow."
He was a school teacher until 1912 when he became full time editor of
the newspaper "Avanti", to which he "gave a violent, suggestive, and
intransigent orientation." He edited that news paper and was a
leader of the Socialist party until 1914, when he found "himself in
opposition to the directorate of the Italian Socialist party because
he advocated a kind of active neutrality on the part of Italy in the
War by the Nations against the party's tendency of absolute
neutrality." After that he initiated a new newspaper in support of
Italian intervention in World War I, along with bitter polemics aimed
at his former comrades at Avanti. For this he was expelled from the
Socialist party. He then undertook "a very active campaign in behalf
of Italian intervention," to the point where he was drafted and went
to fight on behalf of his country. He was wounded by a grenade and
promoted on account of his bravery.
His new movement was still, at least in his mind, a movement of
socialism. Only now it was an "Italian socialism" or Nationalist
Socialism. His new newspaper was called "Il Popolo D'Italia." And
after the war, his new movement saw the disarray of the times, and
the "value of waging a civil war against neutralists
and `Bolsheviks'" which he calculated would gain him political power.
He gathered about him military "Arditi", syndicalists, "futurists"
and "founded a new movement called the "Fasci di Combattimento"
(Combat Fascio). The term fascio derived from the insignia that the
lictors of ancient Rome carried." That insignia a bundle of sticks
with an axe blade protruding symbolized discipline and the power of
the state to impose discipline. The axe was the power to kill. The
sticks the power to "scourge."
A New Movement with Old Dreams.
This new movement, from the start, was no longer aimed at
overthrowing the "capitalist class." It had new aims. It declared
it's loyalty to the servicemen who had served the country in the
first world War. It declared it's opposition to "imperialism at the
expense of Italy. And of course, aimed at reclaiming lands lost in
the creation of Yugoslavia that year. And most importantly it pledged
to "sabotage in every way the candidates of the neutralists in all
the various parties."
It now declared "war on Socialism, not because it is socialist, but
because it opposes Nationalism." It labeled Socialism "reactionary
and absolutely conservative." and said that "if its views had
prevailed, our survival in the world of today would be impossible."
For this new ideology, the world was seen in terms of national
survival; "us against them." and them. And to the new movement,
Bolshevism was an enemy because it was a "Russian phenomenon."
Fascism was a movement from the start that paid lip service to the
demands and needs of the majority – but no more. The "true nature of
the productive process and the needs of the nation" would come first.
Mussolini said: "Worker control over industry? We shall support
these demands, partly because we want the workers to get accustomed
to the responsibilities of management and to learn as a result that
it isn't easy to run a business successfully."
And "as for economic democracy, we favor national syndicalism and
reject state intervention whenever it aims at throttling the creation
of wealth." For the National Socialist, "economic democracy had a
very different meaning from what it had meant to progressives,
socialists and to ordinary citizens. For the National Socialist, the
fight was not against concentrations of power or inequities so much
as a "fight against technological and moral backwardness." No longer
would his movement fight against unearned wealth. No it would support
the creation of wealth. Wealthy people could thrive under National
Socialism – as long as they gave unquestioned support to the State
and it's doctrines of hyper-nationalism. As Hitler would say
later, "I don't need to nationalize the industries. I have
nationalized the Industrialists."
This new movement looked forward, and it looked back. It looked back
on the Roman Empire for both example and a vision of the future.
Initially it was anti-clerical and sought to correct the financial
crises of Government with nearly confiscatory taxes on wealth;
a "partial expropriation" of wealth, and to confiscate ill gotten
gains of defense industries that the fascists believed had cheated
the country. It promoted a eight hour day, accident, sickness and old
age protections, protection of small farms and organization of labor;
but always with an emphasis on imposing moral responsibility,
discipline and obedience to the Party. For instance the very earliest
plank said that "industries and public services" would be assigned
to " syndical organizations that are morally worthy and
technologically qualified."
It claimed to champion the principle that the "Government should
administer public affairs not in the interest of parties and
clienteles but in the supreme interests of the nation." It's plank
was on the side of ruthless efficiency and restructuring of the
Federal Government and the elimination of "pork barrel politics."
But what really marked it was this:
It was:
(a) "Political organism." As a political organism it took advantage
of every technique of propaganda and mass organizing and demanded
absolute loyalty of party members.
(b) "An economic organism." As a political organism it was not
adverse to making money and promoted businesses that were willing to
toe the party line.
(c) a combat organism. As a combat organism, it was set up not just
to defend the country from without, but specifically to do combat
with "internal" enemies.
A Doctrine of Action and Thought.
The new movement rapidly evolved and spawned imitators. These were
Hitler in Germany, Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, Juan Peron
in Argentina. Each of them was to influence posterity in it's own
way. Each progressing in "waves" from 1919-1923; 1929-1935; and 1939
to 1943. And finally, after 1945, Fascism entered a new phase in
which it seemed to have been discredited. Mussolini's own version of
it evolved over time, eventually perishing with Hitler when he locked
his fate with him.
Continued....(footnotes will be added later)
In the emotional political battles of the present age, it is easy to
get confused between the individuals one is disagreeing with and
misleading labels. Some of the most abused labels are "right and
left", "Commie" and "Fascist." Yet there are definite echoes of both
in the modern discourse, mixed and confused in often jarring ways.
Once one knows the history of fascism and what it was actually about,
one can see it's heritage in the modern discourse. A lot of people
who don't think of themselves as fascists or communists believe
strongly in ideas that are a direct heritage from those movements.
One does not have to look to the Islamicist fundamentalist movements
or South America to see those influences. Just as there was a
commonality between the ideas of Communism and those of liberal
democracy, so there is a commonality between the ideas of Fascism
and "neo-conservativism" not to mention the KKK or John Birch
Society. Yet if one points out those similarities one will draw howls
of protests. Since many people are ignorant of what Fascism was and
how it evolved, this is partly a factor of ignorance. But not
entirely.
(footnotes will be added later)
A Radical Ideological Movement.
Fascism was a "radical ideological movement." Radical because it
sought to cut out and remove what it saw as infected or corrupt
roots. Ideological because it was based on Ideals that were defined
in broad abstract terms and often applied in a simplistic manner.
Fascism has it's genesis in the social and political disruption
brought about by unequal and massive change. It is characterized by
ultra-nationalism, authoritarianism, the systematic use of mass
media, systematic propaganda, group psychology and "party
discipline." The followers of fascist movements "believed" in them in
as a kind of social religion.
The author of the definitive book "Mediterranean Fascism 1919-1945",
Charles F. Delzell writes "The label `Fascism' ought not to be
confused with old-style royalist or authoritarian military regimes of
the right. The latter were usually meant to be fairly temporary in
nature, whereas Fascist dictatorships sought to be permanent;
moreover they didn't have their roots in the problems of a `mass'
society the way that Fascism did."
Most of these regimes failed to create the permanent social systems
they sought. Why they failed – and where they for a time succeeded –
is important if we are to understand the legacy they left behind.
The Ideology of Communism as an extension of Liberalism.
Fascism originally began as a distinct response to a perceived threat
of violence coming from another radical ideological movement;
Communism. But it also reflected the beginnings of a revolt against
the underlying movement of which Communism was but the most radical
expression. Under the influence of scientific and materialist
thinking, traditional beliefs were everywhere being challenged and
broken. Not just silly things, like whether or not the world was
round, but fundamental values like the sanctity of human life or the
existence of an all powerful God, were rejected by "enlightened"
people as superstitious or "archaic."
Liberal society was feared by those who didn't quite share in it's
benefits or share it's premises. For all that Communism also opposed
liberal society, it shared many of these underlying core beliefs.
Communism would eventually become a code for other beliefs that the
new movement, fascism, would be struggling against.
Communism was the logical extension of various secular "liberal"
premises. It's motto was the famous phrase of Marx; "From each
according to his abilities to each according to their needs" which
also was a underlying tenet of liberalism. Communism claimed to be
the champion of enlightenment and democracy. It attracted leading
intellectuals and working people who felt that they were being
unfairly treated by the "system."
Communism also claimed to be based on scientific theories, and reason
and observation. It observed the "bourgeois" and capitalist
societies of it's day and drawing on the "labor theory of value"
claimed that social inequality and nationalistic conflict were the
consequence of capital "alienating" or to use more modern
lingo "dehumanizing" people in the service of the political economy.
This results in "class warfare" as the commodified and dehumanized
masses were reduced to only being valuable to the system for the
value of their work. According to Marxian analysis the "capitalist"
class had developed and suborned or taken power from the class of
nobles before them, and now was oppressing the working class -- and
would one day be overthrown by that class. They dreamed that this
would result in a classless and peaceful society, a "workers
paradise."
This ideology rapidly involved into an ideological movement in which
the adherents "believed" that social justice and equality could be
achieved resulting in a post-Capitalist workers paradise. This
secular religion was popular among Intellectuals and some working
class people who had the dream of one day benefitting from this
revolution. According to Marxian analysis Capitalists would gobble
each other's businesses, "enslave more and more people to `capital'
and develop such efficiency in the production of weapons of warfare
that they would eventually bring about mutual destruction of each
other in world wars over those markets.
The Breakdown of Liberal Society.
Indeed the capitalists had gone to war over markets and at the
expense of the common people. Liberal Society was breaking down. The
people of Europe experienced hard economic times, confused and effete
governments, and democratic methods and governments didn't seem up to
the task of governing society rationally, effectively or fairly. The
world seemed ripe for change. There was a longing for order and
discipline among ordinary people.
The Reasons why Communism didn't appeal.
But this longing wasn't to be inherited by the Communist movement.
Their emphasis on Capital and the evil of property blinded them to
the dangers of taking property away from the common people. Those
with any money or property naturally feared confiscation of their
money or property. And the vast majority of the people had some
property or dreamed of owning something. Most people didn't see
anything wrong with wealth, and indeed most of them dreamed of having
wealth and property themselves, not giving it up to some amorphous
state. Indeed they rightly distrusted the creation of such a state.
Land, money, possessions represent a kind of power that even poor
people are loathe to part with. If they parted with it, as Orwell
would years later point out in his book "animal farm" – what was
there to keep the "pigs" from moving into the Farmers house. Once
power or property is given up, it almost never is returned to those
who did so.
Marx's formulation "religion is the Opiate of the people" offended
many common folks, who wanted to turn to religion for succor. To them
religion was the only stable thing they could turn to in times of
trouble, or turn to for guidance with the exigencies of life. If it
was an addiction it was an addiction that would not be broken without
a violent struggle.
Finally, Marxism claimed to be transnational and even international
in nature. For the Marxist, the workers paradise would also erase
country borders, and unit all the peoples of the world. Most people
valued their cultural distinctiveness and traditional values. They
were often ignorant of and/or feared the distinctiveness of their
neighbors. For them the erasure of boundaries would be a nightmare.
Many people were proud of their own distinctiveness and heritage and
ignorant of or fearful of the distinctive traits of their neighbors.
They were prejudiced against and afraid of the aliens living among
them, much less letting new ones into their boundaries. For most
people Marxism was alienated from reality and alienated from the
people it claimed to want to save. And it was a source of fear for
them not a source of any kind of potential salvation. For the usual
mix of good reasons and awful ones.
A Violent Fanatical Ideology.
Worse, in the hands of the more radical factions, Communism was an
active militant violent and deceptive movement. It claimed to be a
champion of liberal democracy and yet it – in fact – sought to
subvert and destroy liberal democracy. It claimed moral authority and
yet it's intellectuals, despised middle class people with their petty
property and `unscientific beliefs.' It claimed to champion the
working man. And yet it's organizers and propagandists were only too
willing to foment destructive violence aimed not at getting better
conditions for working people, but at causing conflict and disarray.
The methods of communism, propaganda, violence, subversion,
indoctrination, loyalty to the party, all seemed justified to it's
army of devotees. But threatened the traditional beliefs of every
society where they were tried.
Thus it would not be Communism that would prevail. Other ideologies
and movements also took up the mantle of "saving" people from the
suffering they were enduring and "restoring" their pride and feelings
of national `manhood" (national pride). These groups would be based
on hyper-nationalism, xenophobia, hierarchy, in short Fascism.
Continued...
This years election is reaching it's final moments. Do we accept the premises of this representation of "neo-conservativism" or continue the developing tradition of improving our society? Do we accept voter fraud in the name of preventing voter fraud? Do we accept the method of the "Big Lie" or do we try to force politicians and parties to at least try to stay within the parameters of truth? And do we continue to leave idiots in charge of our foreign policy and military. (See the news about the failure to secure weapons dumps in Iraq).
The Republicans have been using the methods of spin, being "on topic," "team playing" and of the "Big Lie" to advance policies with arguments some of which only start to take on a patina of logic after they've been repeated over and over again for year after year -- or perhaps after too many intoxicants.
They have tried to label Democrats, mischaracterized their stands on issue after issue and claimed the "center" while actually acting on the "right". And with an energy that has been astounding in it's collective duplicity. In this election even the most normally logical and level headed among them; such as Charles Krauthammer or George Will seem to have taken out all the rhetorical stops to attack the Democratic nominee and elect their choice.
I'm voting for Kerry. I agree with Richard Cohen. I've become as Mussolini would call me, a conservative.
In doing this the Republicans have also been practicing the principle of the "unresolved conflict" in order to keep power -- not to resolve the issues they claim so important. Attack Bin Laden, but make sure he excapes. Bring down Hussein, but make sure his successors have plenty of arms and explosives. Make an issue out of "social issues" but make sure that they remain issues from generation to generation. In truth few Republican Politicians feel as passionately about "right to life" as they profess, most of them are all for taking adult life and are only playing to the least common and emotional denominator when they accuse liberals and the courts of being "activist" for upholding the Constitution. Few of these guys care about the men and women in their military as much as they profess. They not only bleed them dry, they destroy their families in the process. These guys push issues year after year not to resolve them but to hold their base in anger.
In this topsy turvy election the few times Bush has told the truth he's been castigated for it. Terrorism is a long term function of people who are not willing to work within the system to accomplish their ends. You get terrorists two ways; one by fanaticism and dogmatic ideas. The second by exclusion. The irony of politics is that if you exclude people they find a way to inject themselves sooner or later -- unless you also repress them or even kill them. And the Arabs cannot be defeated by attacking each country. They have to be dealt with exactly with the mix of political and military resources we have. Not some fantasy of building a Empire of bases in the middle east. You don't resolve the abortion issue by demogaguing it. And both sides have done that, but the middle ground is based on teaching planned parenthood, values, and doing societies best to make sure that women have a life other than as a Mother, and if they chose to become a mother have the resources to be a good one -- or to put the child up for adoption if that is impossible or premature.
And a lot of "neo-cons" don't know their history. Accusing Judges of being "activist" for trying to uphold the constitution or enforce the principle of equal protection under the law -- should be the last thing that anyone who is a minority in this country should do. Without this loyalty to the Constitution first and to that principle, those people would have been kept down by the courts and the law and not been able to get to positions where they could criticize the judges who freed them.
But it will all work out.