About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 2:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Chris,

I enjoyed reading your analysis of the current state of global affairs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the thrust of your argument seems to that there is an inextricable connection between the individual, the nation-state and relations between states. And further, that a nation-state’s policies and actions abroad are a consequence of, and mirror to, those at home.

In general, there’s some truth in your contention, but I’m not sure that one can easily draw a straight line between the three. The current state of global affairs could fairly be described as an impure form of anarchy, in that there is no over-arching international governing body with ultimate authority over individual states.

And that raises an interesting conundrum. If domestic and global affairs should achieve the type of integration you espouse, that would imply that relations between individuals within states should be placed on the same basis as relations between individuals across states.

But if the proper form of domestic government is miniarchy, that would imply some form of minimal global governance. Conversely, if the proper relationship between states is anarchy, that in turn would imply anarchy at home.

Any thoughts?

Brendan

Post 21

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 4:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Before responding to Brendan, I should note that I've received well over 150 ~private~ emails from individuals about this article since its debut 5 days ago. I would like, once again, to encourage people to ~post~ their comments here; though I answer all my email, I will be more than happy to deal with any and all of the points raised in a ~public~ fashion in ~this~ forum. I'm simply unable to deal with these questions on several discussion lists simultaneously, which is why I've invited participants from other lists to contribute here. And don't be bashful about replying to my replies... dialectic, after all, finds its origins in dialogue... :)

Thanks Brendan for raising some very provocative questions about the tension between minarchy and anarchy. I think it is important for me to state a few points up-front before answering your questions.

I am not an anarchist. However, I did go through a fairly hard-core anarchist phase when I was an undergraduate---during a period when Murray Rothbard made a huge impact on my thought (see "How I Became a Libertarian" at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sciabarra1.html ). I still feel Rothbard's influence, and spend the second half of TOTAL FREEDOM: TOWARD A DIALECTICAL LIBERTARIANISM (Penn State Press, 2000) grappling with his enormous contributions to the defense of freedom. I think the anarchists have been quite good at pointing out the pitfalls of minarchy, and the minarchists have been quite good at pointing out the pitfalls of anarchy. I have learned much from both sides of this debate.

Ironically, my chief problem with anarchism is also my chief problem with minarchism: unless one understands the role of culture in shaping politics, ~no~ political revolution of any sort will create the kind of social change necessary to sustain human freedom over the long-run. In general, I have found that the anarchists don't pay enough attention to the issue of culture; it is as if getting rid of the state is the ~only~ answer. If I were to use as a guide the tri-level model that I developed for understanding Rand's social theory (see my AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL), I'd say that anarchists typically reify Level 3 (structural) analysis as if a structural change is both necessary and sufficient for the achievement and sustenance of freedom. It isn't.

Because human freedom is a multi-dimensional achievement---with personal (Level 1), cultural (Level 2), and structural (Level 3) factors reciprocally reinforcing one another---I do believe, as Brendan suggests, "that there is an inextricable connection between the individual, the nation-state and relations between states. And further, that a nation-state’s policies and actions abroad are a consequence of, and mirror to, those at home." I'd go further. I'd say that even if domestic policy drives foreign policy, there is often a reciprocally reinforcing dynamic at work. All the more reason to embrace ~consistency~ when advocating freedom as a reigning principle.

Now, of course, Brendan is also correct that it is not easy "to draw a straight line between the three." It is true that, in many respects, "the current state of global affairs could fairly be described as an impure form of anarchy, in that there is no over-arching international governing body with ultimate authority over individual states." It is also true, however, that states have refined the practice of bomb-hurling far beyond the wildest dreams of any revolutionary anarchist.

Still, there is a loose body of international legal institutions that constitutes the "rule of law" in global affairs. The anarchists are correct to see admiralty law, mercantile law, and the various forms of law governing inter-state behavior as evolved, spontaneous forms. So while there is no "One World" governing body, there are various conventions and general agreements that have arisen to govern inter-state relations---clumsily in many circumstances, but real nonetheless. To the extent that all the governments of the world don't adhere to common principles of adjudication is just one indication of the need for a global movement, across cultures, in support of central political maxims, such as the non-initiation of force. But this is as much of a problem for anarchists as it is minarchists. Even Murray Rothbard argues that private protection agencies must all adhere to the nonaggression principle, and that rogue agencies will be treated as ~criminals~. So whether one advocates universal adherence to the nonaggression principle by all competing protection agencies or universal adherence to the nonaggression principle by a single monopolistic One World government, the fact remains: the noninitiation of force is the only ~moral~ principle for "minimal global governance." I don't see this problem as peculiar to minarchy.

Ideally, I do agree "that relations between individuals within states should be placed on the same basis as relations between individuals across states." But since all states ~should~ be sustained by voluntary taxation, I'd expect an ideal international situation to develop in which there could be open borders, free trade, and the fluid movement of peoples across global territories. Though this is not likely to happen (and we can certainly discuss the possibilities of anything like this ~ever~ happening), and though we can argue about the ~form~ of global governance (competing monopolies, One World monopoly, or competing protection agencies), it seems that most of us agree on the ~substance~ of that governance: the protection of individual rights and the barring of the initiation of force in social relations.

Cheers,
Chris

Post 22

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 6:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good article Chris, except: you are still *way* too polite to Mr Pisaturo, who on the basis of this article appears to be not so much a certified Objectivist as objectively certifiable.

The Popperian description "canvas cleaning", while accurate, doesn't really capture it - "ethnic cleansing" of "savages" is the real gist of Pisaturo's modest proposal, as this quote makes quite clear:

"Our standard of value must be: The rights of one American, whether a soldier or a civilian, are worth more than the lives of all men, women and children in all these nations combined."

Here, his rhetorical ruse of targetting evil "governments" slips for a moment and we can see how his essentialism (evil politics springs from evil culture, evil culture springs from evil people) results in an Essential Solution.

In fact, one could say that from almost any sentence of Pisaturo's essay a voice can be heard - from painful necessity - commanding: "To the nuclear inferno — go!"

I would hope that yourself and Solo are not the only voices to protest against this sort of nonsense in the movement. That the ARI are complicit is genuinely alarming, if not surprising. What are they trying to do, make Whittaker Chambers a prophet?

- Daniel

Post 23

Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 4:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Daniel, for your thoughts on the Pisaturo article. Words like "genocidal" and "Lebensraum" in my own article just don't capture ~enough~ of how the Pisaturo article reads. And yes, Pisaturo is identified as a "senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute" here:
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/mars.shtml

I was criticized on another list for 'package-dealing' ARI Executive Director Yaron Brook and philosopher Leonard Peikoff with Pisaturo. It is true that it was too late for me to discuss formally the most recent contributions of Brook and Peikoff (my article was on deadline, and in excess of its 7000-word limit). But I don't believe that my criticisms of Pisaturo are of a straw-man character. There is ~wide~ support among ARI contributors for a US assault on most of the Arab countries in the Middle East and Pisaturo only brings out some of the logically horrific implications of using the nuclear arsenal toward that end. Popperian canvas-cleaning indeed.

I've heard both Brook and Peikoff speak on the subject of this crisis, and I think, in general, both of them seem to be far less interested in any kind of colonial occupation of the Middle East. (If I'm not mistaken, they have come out ~against~ US occupation in Q&A sessions, but I can't find textual support for this at ARI's site.) Generally, they point to the same countries as Pisaturo, which they believe are engaging in state-sponsored terrorism against the West, but they'd sooner respond with overwhelming force (including nuclear weapons) rather than with any formal US occupation. Brook believes that Iran is the cradle of anti-US terrorism, and should be targeted (see http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/pr020402.shtml ). And, like Brook, Peikoff has long believed Iran to be at the center of anti-US terrorism (see, for example, his 1/28/97 essay, "Iraq: The Wrong War" http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/iraqwrongwar.shtml ; see also Tracinski on the need to attack Iran: http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/roadtovictory.shtml .)

Peikoff's most recent talk "America versus Americans" is available as streaming video (not in print form) at WGBH. See http://streams.wgbh.org/forum/forum.php?lecture_id=1150 . Other ARI contributors, such as Robert Garmong, recognize the folly of building "democracy" without liberty in Iraq (see http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/libertynotdemocracyiniraq.shtml.

Most importantly, however, ~none~ of the ARI writers is paying ~any~ attention to the role of the "New Fascism" in the construction of US foreign policy, the central concern of my essay. As I mention in my article, Peikoff's own writings on the subject do show an awareness of the U.S. role in manufacturing terrorism abroad (see http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/endterrorism.shtml ). But there seems to be no appreciation of Rand's broader and more ~radical~ grasp of the connection between US interventionist domestic policy and foreign policy, so crucial to our comprehensive understanding the global crisis.

Cheers,
Chris

Post 24

Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 8:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris, thanks for taking the time to outline your views on global governance. I well agree that merely replacing one type of structure with another is an insufficient guarantee for the success of any political system.

And it’s certainly the case that in order to ensure justice under a system of global anarchy, competing defence and other agencies would have to adhere to at least the NIOF principle as a minimum standard. How that standard would be enforced is another matter.

One minor quibble, though, over the term “voluntary taxation”. Surely this is an oxymoron? I would have thought that taxation is involuntary by definition.

Regards, Brendan

Post 25

Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 9:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good point, Brendan on "voluntary taxation"... I should have said "voluntary financing."

I think this is one very interesting area, btw. I've often said that just as Rand offered a view of "capitalism: the unknown ideal," she also offered a view of "government: the unknown ideal." Throughout history, taxation has been such an essential element of government that the very ~notion~ of a government that does not derive its sustenance from stolen revenues is pretty revolutionary.

Cheers,
Chris

Post 26

Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 10:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sciabarra- "Witness contemporary Russia, where the death of communism
has given birth to a society of warring post-Soviet mafiosi, leading
some to yearn for the good ol' days of Stalin."

People who yearn for Stalin are called "Communists", with the possible
exception of some naive apoliticals who think Russians need a "strong
leader." Sciabarra's insinuation that an informed and reasonable
person
would consider Russia's present situation inferior to Stalinism is
utterly appalling.

Sciabarra- "Even though I support relentless surgical strikes against
terrorists posing an imminent threat to the United States, I have
argued that America's only practical long-term course of action is
strategic disengagement from the region."

"Strategic disengagement" would mean an end to U.S. aid - at least
military aid - to all governments in the region, including Israel.
Ending military aid to Israel would be the most controversial
aspect of this proposal, but Sciabarra makes no mention of Israel,
except a passing allusion to Rand's support for the U.S. alliance
with that country.

Sciabarra- "In the long-run, I stand with those American Founding
Fathers who advocated free trade with all, entangling political
alliances with none. If that advice was good for a simpler world, it
is even more appropriate for a world of immense complexity, in which
no one power can control for all the myriad unintended consequences of
human action. The central planners of socialism learned this lesson
some time ago; the central planners of a projected U.S. colonialism
have yet to learn it."

The analogy is flawed. Creating a liberal political order does not
require controlling all unintended consquences. If it did, it would
be impossible to accomplish by any means, internal or external.

Sciabarra- "But it took centuries to secularize the Western mind, and
it is liable to take generations to accomplish a modicum of cultural
change among Islamic nations."

Ignoring the fact that one major Islamic nation, Turkey, is already
reasonably democratic.

Sciabarra- "Rand had long believed that the Soviet Union was a
primitive country, doomed to economic stagnation and systemic
collapse. She had once excoriated Ronald Reagan for invoking 'fear'
of the Soviets, for 'exaggerat[ing] the power of the most incompetent
nation in the world,' which was 'not a patriotic service to the United
States' ("The Moral Factor")."

Sciabarra doesn't tell us what statements by Reagan provoked this
criticism. Without this context, it seems rash to conclude that
Rand was complacent about the Soviet threat.

Criticizing George McGovern's nomination speech, Rand wrote "When
a bloody aggressor is loose in the world, a threatened nation must
subordinate all expenditures to the requirements of national
defense . . ." (_The Ayn Rand Letter_, August 28, 1972.)

Sciabarra- "Rand had opposed U.S. involvement in both Korea and
Vietnam, and wondered why the U.S. had 'sacrificed thousands of
American lives, and billions of dollars, to protect a primitive
people who never had freedom, do not seek it, and, apparently, do
not want it' ("The Shanghai Gesture, Part III")."

Today South Korea is a free country.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2002/countryratings/korea-so
uth.htm

Sciabarra- ". . . Rand invoked the spirit of the Old Right critics
of U.S. involvement in World War II, who had been smeared as
'America First'ers' . . ."

"America Firster" is not a smear term. It is what this faction
called themselves.

Sciabarra- "Just as pressure groups had slurped at the government
trough in seeking domestic privileges, so too did they benefit from a
whole global system of foreign aid, involving financial manipulation
(through, for example, the Federal Reserve System, the Ex-Im Bank, and
the IMF), 'credits to foreign consumers to enable them to consume'
U.S.-produced goods, 'unpaid loans to foreign governments, and
subsidies to other welfare states,' to the United Nations, and to the
World Bank ("Egalitarianism and Inflation")."

Excellent article on this topic.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-19-03.html

Sciabarra- "Thomas goes on to say that it is a 'basic tenet' of
'Objectivist political philosophy . . . that the only just governments
are the free countries-and all the free countries are natural
allies. . . .'"

Rand certainly disagreed with this "basic tenet."

Sciabarra- "[Rand] saw the Arab whose teeth are green with decay in
his mouth ("The Left: Old and New") as living 'a nomadic,
anti-industrial form of existence' ("Requiem for Man")."

If Sciabarra's fragmentary quotes represent Rand accurately, she
was indulging her habit of confidently propounding on a subject
of which she was ignorant.

Sciabarra- "To equate a 'nation' with that nation's 'government'
and to assume that the government can and should come to the aid
of other nations under attack may be a valid application of an
individualist ethics-only if the assisting government generates
its revenues and armed services through voluntary means."

Many libertarians would agree with this, but Rand did not.

"Any program of voluntary government financing is the last,
_not_ the first, step on the road to a free society - the last,
_not_ the first, reform to advocate. It would work only when
the basic principles and institutions of a free society have
been established. It would not work today." ("Government Financing
in a Free Society", 1964, included in _The Virtue of Selfishness)

"A process of liberation would be much more rapid than the process of
enslavement had been, since the facts of reality would be its ally.
But
still, a gradual process is required - and any program of voluntary
government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant
future."
(Ibid)

Rand thought the U.S. should be willing to aid allies like Taiwan and
Israel, without waiting for the "distant future" of voluntary
government financing.

Sciabarra- "If governments rob the wealth of their own citizens to
fund foreign adventures, and if they conscript people to fight and die
in such adventures-all ethical bets are off."

Rand didn't hesitate to make ethical judgments on opponents of the
Vietman War.

Post 27

Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 11:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
CHARLES NOVINS:
The assumption that the Iraq war (circa 2003) automatically
implies a long-term expansion into the region is not necessarily
true, and is in fact denied repeatedly by the Bush admin.

DAVID TOMLIN:
I know of no such denial. Bush has repeatedly said the U.S. would
stay as long as "necessary", which translates as "as long as we
damn well feel like it."

CN:
So insofar as this undergirds your arguments, there is a
problem.

DT:
Only if politician's statements count as evidence.

There's been a scientific breakthrough on that matter.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2770228&

src=eDialog/GetContent

CMS:
For those of us bred on Ayn Rand's insight that politics is only a
consequence of a larger philosophical and cultural cause-that culture, in
effect, trumps politics-the idea that it is possible to construct a
political solution in a culture that does not value procedural democracy,
free institutions, or the notion of individual responsibility is a delusion.

CN:
We agree on this statement-of-the-case in terms of principle. But what is
the underlying assumption in terms of facts? By raising this (admittedly
important) point, you are implicitly suggesting that the people of Iraq are
necessarily insufficiently advanced to handle a rights-based political
milieu.

DT:
This is a weak point in Sciabarra's argument. He doesn't even specifically
discuss Iraq in this context. He just throws out a couple of cliches
about Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. Then he embarks on a long digression
about Sayyid Qutb, to no purpose except to reiterate that fundamentalism
is anti-liberal.

CN:
The first answer to that is that neither you nor anyone knows this
for certain until such a thing is attempted.

DT:
Is that only because of a lack of factual data about the Iraqis? Or have
Objectivists not yet worked out exactly what premises are required
to support a given degree of liberalization?

CN:
But you might also suggest that we know ENOUGH at the outset to think
success is unlikely. The reason I disagree with this is because of the very
persuasive events that have taken place next door in Iran.

DT:
What makes Iran a proxy for Iraq? Physical proximity?

What about all the Arab countries that have had less repressive
governments than Iraq, but have made little or no progress toward
liberalization? Some of them are also "next door", and they all
have more in common with Iraqi Arabs than the Iranians do.

CN:
In short, the
truth is getting through, however that process may be truncated. And it's
getting through in such a way that it's having profound effects on the
political structure, which MEANS it's having effects on the average Joe's
basic philosophy.

DT:
From changes in the political structure, you can infer such things
as phenomenalism losing ground to direct realism?

I've often thought that Objectivists, beginning with Rand herself, are
somewhat vague about these links between politics and "basic
philosophy."

CN:
Iraq has (had) a more repressive information structure than Iran, but it
also has a more secular philosophy to begin with, not to mention a tradition
of capitalism (of sorts) "on the street."

DT: At the risk of being trite, both Iraq and Syria have been under
secularist tyrannies for years. Religion isn't the only obstacle.
Granted, it's the only one Sciabarra mentions.

The bit about "a tradition of capitalism (of sorts) 'on the street'"
is the sort of thing that communicates nothing to anyone who doesn't
already know what you are talking about. Are you saying this is
something true of Iraq but not Iran? Do you have a source?

Objectivists use "capitalism" in confusing, inconsistent ways. So
do most people, actually, which is why I mostly avoid using the
term.

Saddam's Iraq was a semi-capitalist society. The oil industry was
nationalized, but most economic activity was in private hands, and
there was a stock market.

CMS:
The lunacy of nation-building...

CN:
It is lunacy in its purest form.

DT:
I don't support nation-building, but I think it is hyperbolic to
call it "lunacy."

I don't know what you mean by "purest form."

CN:
Pure "nation-building" isn't in anyone's mind or
intentions.

DT:
According to what I have read, some folks in Congress are getting
impatient because the administration hasn't told them much about
what it plans to do.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030519.shtml

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/20/MN148811.DTL

CN:
The role of the USA (both in actual and stated terms) is to
build a relatively narrow channel.

DT:
It's doing a pitiful job of it.

_The Economist_, a magazine that supported the war, has an article
in its current issue that begins "Postwar reconstruction in Iraq
is off to a dreadful start."

I've posted a couple of articles on economic policy in occupied
Iraq. The price of gas is controlled at an absurd 4 cents per
gallon, creating shortages and lines. To prevent re-sale, soldiers
are shooting holes in gas cans and cutting up hoses. Besides
destroying scarce capital, they're giving the locals more
reasons to hate their occupiers.

You can talk "philosophy" all you want, but history shows that
a strong middle class is one of the foundations of a liberal
political order. Iraq's middle class has alreadly been eroded by
sanctions. Obstructing Iraq's economic recovery is no way to
achieve the presumed goal.

CN:
The hope is that the Iraqis will enter,
but if they don't, that's the risk the USA is taking.

DT:
This raises an interesting about the length of the occupation.
If the Iraqis "don't enter", do the occupiers give up and go
home? How do we know when the moment has come to admit failure?

CMS:
The central planners of socialism learned this lesson some time ago; the
central planners of a projected U.S. colonialism have yet to learn it.

CN:
If USA colonialism is at the heart of your argument, then it's a false
assumption and your whole argument topples. Again, in both real and stated
terms, there is a national security justification and basis here.

DT:

For "projected U.S. colonialism", substitute "projected U.S. policy
of defensive occupations." How does that change the argument?

Btw, I also rejected the analogy with socialist central planning,
on different grounds.

CN:
There is
NOT any self-enriching basis here (such as the lame "stealing their oil"
argument.)

DT:
There have been more sophisticated arguments about the possible
role of oil, which you have ignored.

We know now that oil was more important than exotic weapons. We
know that because of the priorities in securing the sites.

CMS:
Thus, the New Fascism exports "the bloody chaos of tribal warfare" to the
rest of the world, creating a whole class of "pull peddlers" among both
foreign and domestic lobbyists, who feed on the carcass of the American
taxpayer, causing massive global political, social, and economic
dislocations ("The Pull Peddlers").

CN:
....but the mistake you're making again relates back to your faulty
assumption that the goal is export.

DT:
I don't think Sciabarra makes this assumption. In the passage
you quote, he says that it happens, not that it is "the goal."

Similarly: "It is a process of privilege-dispensing that, I might
add, will only be augmented in the wake of any long-term U.S.
occupation of Iraq."

It will happen, regardless of the goal of the occupation. That
is Sciabarra's point, and this time I agree.

CN:
Your references to remarks by Ron Pisaturo give your essay a bit of a
straw-man quality.

DT:
Agreed. Enough said.

Post 28

Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 12:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a two-part rejoinder to David Tomlin's two-part reply.

I'm very happy Tomlin posted this dialogue to SOLO HQ---he makes enormously important points, and I'd be interested to see Charles Novins reply to him here. Some of this dialogue appeared on the usenet newsgroup HPO (humanities.philosophy.objectivism). Since I've posted links to my article and this discussion to quite a few lists, it is a lot easier for me to focus on ~one~ discussion, rather than two dozen---which is why I've invited others to contribute here.

Let me reply briefly and methodically to those points made by Tomlin that were directed to me, rather than to Novins. (Since I've discussed the Pisaturo "straw-man" issue above, I'll focus on other points here.)

1. In response to my comment that some in Russia yearn for the good ol' days of Stalin, Tomlin writes:

'People who yearn for Stalin are called "Communists", with the possible exception of some naive apoliticals who think Russians need a "strong leader." Sciabarra's insinuation that an informed and reasonable person would consider Russia's present situation inferior to Stalinism is utterly appalling.'

I'm not insinuating anything about "informed and reasonable" people in Russia---of which I am ~sure~ there are many. All I'm suggesting is that in the absence of a shift toward an individualist culture, many Russian citizens, steeped in the collectivist and statist values of the Red era, would prefer some kind of authoritarian government---and not all of them are Communists. Even Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, anti-Communist that he was, proposed a kind of theocratic answer to communism that is deeply reminiscent of the mysticist-authoritarian character of Czarist Russia. Rand once noted that Russian culture, "atheistic" by decree, was still among the most mystical cultures on the planet.

2. On the issue of strategic disengagement: I do believe that in the ~long-run~, the U.S. should phase out military aid to all governments in the Middle East. The Israeli question is extremely complex, far beyond our current scope, and it would merit a separate discussion; I do believe, however, that the Israelis, who possess weapons of mass destruction, could seriously contain any threats from hostile forces.

3. Tomlin says that the analogy between the central planners of socialism and the central planners of a projected U.S. colonialism is "flawed." He is correct to note that the creation "of a liberal political order does not require controlling all unintended consequences. If it did, it would be impossible to accomplish by any means, internal or external." But that is not what the neoconservative architects of U.S. foreign policy are aiming for. They are endorsing "democratic nation-building," an extension of their neo-Wilsonian agenda to export "democracy" to the rest of the world. Their version of "democracy," however, includes extensive collaboration between multinational corporations, the US government, and host governments, and is precisely the kind of "New Fascism" that Rand deplored. Furthermore, the extension of this kind of arrangement will only cause more distortions in global peace and security, and in global finance, with its central bank, credit, and bond manipulations, and growing government debt.

A good article on the relationship of "Debt and Democracy" currently appears in THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS (12 June 2003). Gordon S. Wood, who has written some terrific works on colonial America, reviews Bruce H. Mann's REBUBLIC OF DEBTORS: BANKRUPTCY IN THE AGE OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE and James Macdonald's A FREE NATION IN DEBT: THE FINANCIAL ROOTS OF DEMOCRACY. Wood writes:

"By the beginning of the twenty-first century . . . the development of global markets and the international ownership of public debts, largely by institutions and not individuals, have radically transformed public finance. The consequence 'has been the progressive disappearance of . . . the citizen creditor.' . . . No wonder then that the identity between citizens and creditors has been shattered. The percentage of US government bonds owned by individual American citizens is now under 10 percent. Indeed, because of government debt financing through banks, pension funds, and other institutions, most citizens of modern states are scarcely aware that they have any economic interest in their national debts. . . . 'For all practical purposes . . . the venerable marriage between public credit and democratic government, so vital a factor in the history of the world, has been dissolved.'"

This is key---especially since it is the central bank, in the "New Fascism," that is the source of boom-bust and ultimate decision-making (which impinges on member banks and the differential beneficiaries of monetary expansion). Until that system is overturned domestically, we cannot hope for the establishment of ~any~ genuinely liberal political order ~anywhere~ on the planet. Yes, of course, it's all relative; what the US does in extending markets might be preferable to the authoritarian Hussein regime... but let's not kid ourselves into believing that this is the extension of capitalism, the unknown ideal. Indeed, Tomlin agrees with me that the neo-corporatist arrangement "will happen, regardless of the goal of the occupation."

(BTW, I agree with Tomlin's excellent points about the importance of a "strong middle class" to the development of capitalism. Would like to see him say more on this.)

Continued in Part Two...

Post 29

Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 1:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is part two of my two-part response to David Tomlin.

4. Tomlin points to Turkey as one Islamic nation that is "reasonably democratic." I've not argued that ~every~ Islamic nation in the Middle East is despotic; there are cultural trends even within Iran among the younger generation that are very promising. Internal cultural trends are extremely important to affect change; the German and Japanese models depended largely upon elements of a democratic past in Germany and Japan. And in the case of Germany, Japan, and even South Korea, we should not forget that the US largely socialized the military expenditures of these countries, thus liberating enormous wealth for the production of consumer goods. (Indeed, we ~still~ have 37,000 US troops in South Korea---a vestige of the Cold War.)

Still, fundamental change almost always comes from ~within~ a country's culture; it is rarely imposed successfully from without. In my article, I allude to Hayek's points on this in LAW, LEGISLATION, AND LIBERTY (vol. 3). Here's an ~excerpt~ of what Hayek has to say:

"[V]ery few countries in the world are in the fortunate position of possessing a strong constitutional tradition. Indeed, outside the English-speaking world probably only the smaller countries of Northern Europe and Switzerland have such traditions. Most of the other countries have never preserved a constitution long enough to make it become a deeply entrenched tradition; and in many of them there is also lacking the background of traditions and beliefs which in the more fortunate countries have made constitutions work which did not explicitly state all that they presupposed, or which did not even exist in written form. This is even more true of those new countries which, without a tradition even remotely similar to the ideal of the Rule of Law which the nations of Europe have long held, have adopted from the latter the institutions of democracy without the foundations of beliefs and convictions presupposed by those institutions.

"If such attempts to transplant democracy are not to fail, much of that background of unwritten traditions and beliefs, which in the successful democracies had for a long time restrained the abuse of majority power, will have to be spelled out in such instruments of government for the new democracies. That most of such attempts have so far failed does not prove that the basic conceptions of democracy are inapplicable, but only that the particular institutions which for a time worked tolerably well in the West presuppose the tacit acceptance of certain other principles which were in some measure observed there but which, where they are not yet recognized, must be made as much a part of the written constitution as the rest. We have no right to assume that the particular forms of democracy which have worked with us must also work elsewhere. Experience seems to show that they do not. There is, therefore, every reason to ask how those conceptions which our kind of representative institutions tacitly presupposed can be explicitly put into such constitutions."

5. With regard to Rand's criticism of Reagan: Rand was reacting generally to Reagan's belief that the Soviet Union was a strong adversary. I recognize in the article that Rand was ~opposed~ to appeasement of the Soviets, so I assumed no complacency about the Soviet threat by Rand.

6. Tomlin is right that ""America Firster" is not a smear term. It is what this faction called themselves." But I was not claiming "America Firster" as a smear term; I was paraphrasing ~Rand~, who wrote in "The Roots of War" that the opponents of World War II "were ~smeared~ as 'isolationists,' 'reactionaries,' and ~'America-First'ers'~" (emphasis added).

7. Thanks to Tomlin for pointing to that fine article by Ian Vasquez comparing free trade favorably to Marshall Plan-like schemes, and also for that article, "Science Confirms: Politicians Lie"... absolutely terrific. Alas, political scientist Glen Newey's conclusion that lying is "an important part of politics in the modern democracy" was anticipated many centuries ago by the works of Machiavelli. :)

8. I wasn't implying that the US should wait until it moves to full, voluntary financing before entertaining the possibility of ~any~ strategic alliances for ~any~ purpose. ~If~, however, Rand equated a "nation" with that nation's "government," I would say she was being inconsistent.

9. Finally, a note about my discussion of Sayyid Qutb and Islamic fundamentalism: it may have been structured as a digression---but it was something that I believed necessary to mention in this article. Part of the significance of what I call Rand's tri-level model is that it requires our examination of any social problem on three distinct levels: the personal (level 1), the cultural (level 2), the structural (level 3). For a graphical depiction of this tri-level model, and a brief discussion of its reciprocal relationships, see:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/rad/PubRadReviews/crr.htm#trilevel

The point here is that a consideration of the ethical dimension (level 1), to which both the philosophies of Qutb and Rand speak, cannot be ignored. Noting that religious fundamentalism is anti-life, anti-man, or anti-liberal may be cliche at this point, but I didn't want my discussion of the structural realities of the "New Fascism" to obscure the ethical dimension.

That's all for now.

Cheers,
Chris

Post 30

Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 1:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The above link to the diagram of the tri-level model doesn't appear to work; you may have to cut and paste it, since there is a reference to a bookmark, and it doesn't appear to work here either:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/rad/PubRadReviews/crr.htm#trilevel

If all else fails, just go to the article and scroll down to the diagram. :)

Cheers,
Chris

Post 31

Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 4:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
:Chris - I'm very happy Tomlin posted this dialogue to SOLO HQ---

David - It's kind of you to say so. You are an exemplar for receiving criticism graciously.

:Chris - All I'm suggesting is that in the absence of a shift toward an individualist culture, many Russian citizens, steeped in the collectivist and statist values of the Red era, would prefer some kind of authoritarian government---and not all of them are Communists.

David - Then your point seems to be nearly the opposite of what I thought. It also seems to count against your larger thesis, since Russia has achieved a less authoritarian government despite the opposition of a culturally collectivist minority.

:Chris - The Israeli question is extremely complex, far beyond our current scope, and it would merit a separate discussion . . .

David - Fair enough. I think it is worth noting the reasons Rand gave for supporting U.S. aid to Israel (and Taiwan).

"Israel and Taiwan are the two countries that need and deserve U.S. help - not in the name of international altruism, but by reason of actual U.S. national interests in the Mediterranean and the Pacific."
("The Lessons of Vietnam")

"Of all the various refugee groups that escaped from the mass slaughter conducted by totalitarian regimes in their native lands, only two - the Chinese Nationalists and the Israelis . . . have built a new life for themselves against tremendous odds. Are we . . . to betray men of that caliber and deliver them into the hands of their executioners?" ("The Shanghai Gesture")

Rand did not specify what "national interests" she had in mind. She might, or might not, have believed they survived the end of the Cold War. But the "men of such caliber" argument remains regardless. It is because of Rand's feelings about Israel that I think she would have supported the occupation of Iraq.

:Chris - But that is not what the neoconservative architects of U.S. foreign policy are aiming for. They are endorsing "democratic nation-building," an extension of their neo-Wilsonian agenda to export "democracy" to the rest of the world. Their version of "democracy," however, includes extensive collaboration between multinational corporations, the US government, and host governments, and is precisely the kind of "New Fascism" that Rand deplored. Furthermore, the extension of this kind of arrangement will only cause more distortions in global peace and security, and in global finance, with its central bank, credit, and bond manipulations, and growing government debt.

David - "Peace and security" is the crux. Many Objectivists accept the premise that this version of democracy, whatever its flaws, will at least promote peace.

:Chris - Yes, of course, it's all relative; what the US does in extending markets might be preferable to the authoritarian Hussein regime... but let's not kid ourselves into believing that this is the extension of capitalism, the unknown ideal.

David - This has to be a strawman. Surely no one expects the U.S. to give Iraq a more laissez-faire system than its own. It will be the kind of "capitalism" symbolized by the World Trade towers - which were state subsidized buildings for managing state subsidized trade.

:Chris - BTW, I agree with Tomlin's excellent points about the importance of a "strong middle class" to the development of capitalism. Would like to see him say more on this.

David - I'm no expert on the subject. It is a commonplace of history that an autocracy is likely to be challenged by the rise of a large, prosperous, self-confident middle class, and that it is from such challenges that republican institutions grow.

I think this gets some discussion in a book of Tocqueville's writings, called _Selected Letters On Politics And Society_ . It may be touched on also in _Democracy in America_, but I'm less certain because it's been longer since I read it. The political writings of the Founders are also pertinent, but I regret I can't be more specific. It's probably discussed somewhere in _The Federalist Papers_, but again I don't recall for sure.

On the theoretical side, there are several reasons that the habits of middle class life provide a foundation for free institutions. Perhaps the most relevant for our discussion is that it promotes the exercise of independent thought and judgment.

:Chris - I've not argued that ~every~ Islamic nation in the Middle East is despotic; there are cultural trends even within Iran among the younger generation that are very promising.

David - You wrote "For those of us bred on Ayn Rand's insight that politics is only a consequence of a larger philosophical and cultural cause-that culture, in effect, trumps politics-the idea that it is possible to construct a political solution in a culture that does not value procedural democracy, free institutions, or the notion of individual responsibility is a delusion", and "But it took centuries to secularize the Western mind, and it is liable to take generations to accomplish a modicum of cultural change among Islamic nations." I thought you meant to suggest that this "modicum of cultural change" must take place before it could be "possible to construct a political solution."

The Hayek quote is interesting. It seems to have been written before the world's recent wave of liberalization.

:Chris - Alas, political scientist Glen Newey's conclusion that lying is "an important part of politics in the modern democracy" was anticipated many centuries ago by the works of Machiavelli.

David - I'm glad you brought up Old Nick. I think he is well worth some direct quotes.

"How praiseworthy it is for a prince to keep his word and to live by integrity and not by deceit everyone knows; nevertheless, one sees from experience of our times that the princes who have accomplished great deeds are those who have cared little for keeping their promises and who have known how to manipulate the minds of men by shrewdness; and in the end they have surpassed those who laid their foundations upon loyalty. . . . Alexander VI did nothing else, he thought about nothing else, except to deceive men, and he always found the occasion to do this. And there was never a man who had more forcefulness in his oaths, who affirmed a thing with more promises, and who honoured his word less; nevertheless, his tricks always succeeded perfectly since he was well acquainted with this aspect of the world. . . . Everyone sees what you seem to be, few touch upon what you are . . . Let a prince therefore act to conquer and to maintain the state; his methods will always be judged honourable and will be praised by all; for ordinary people are always deceived by appearances and by the outcome of a thing . . ." (_The Prince_, ch. 18)

Alexander VI was pope from 1492 to 1503. The notorious Cesare Borgia was his illegitimate son.

:Chris- I wasn't implying that the US should wait until it moves to full, voluntary financing before entertaining the possibility of ~any~ strategic alliances for ~any~ purpose.

David - Since I've skimmed Joseph Rowland's essay, I think I have a better idea of what you are getting at.

:Chris -~If~, however, Rand equated a "nation" with that nation's "government," I would say she was being inconsistent.

David - No, I didn't mean to suggest that. Since I had only glanced at the Rowland essay, the part about "nation" vs. "government" didn't make any sense to me, so I just ignored it.

Post 32

Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 4:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis May wrote:

"Libertarians and Objectivists have no decernable "Military Doctrine". They don't know how to raise money for a modern military, how to deal with strategic threats, or how to deal with WMD from any source. Rand understood almost nothing of the actual Soviet military threat and
Libertarian/Objectivists critics of Reagan
still refuse to understand what caused the
Soviet Empire to collapse.

Rand had almost no understanding of the
relevance of military hardware in formulating
military doctrine. Objectivism has only
a "floating abstraction" for a competing
military model. Those who dismiss the
concerns over WMD will in turn be dismissed
by those who have even the most rudimentary
understanding of a modern military."

Can Dennis share with Objectivist and libertarians on this list his knowledge and understanding of WMD? His experience as a former USAF and weapon designer can be very valuable. Please enlighten us.

Thank you,

M.F. Cohen

Post 33

Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 6:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Before I begin, I'd like to note that some people have persisted in posting criticisms of my essay on other lists, such as humanities.philosophy.objectivism---which is their prerogative. However, since I will not answer critiques on each of the lists to which I've posted links of this essay (the job of keeping up with such dialogue would be impossible), I would like to once again invite those interested in ~dialogue~ on these questions to post here on SOLO HQ.

This said, I'd like to thank both David and Michelle for posting their comments here. (And thanks, David, for your kind comments about my graciousness in receiving criticism; my whole website is ~built~ on response and rejoinder. It's practically my reason-for-being, so I appreciate anyone who notices this.)

A few points in response:

1. David states that "Russia has achieved a less authoritarian government despite the opposition of a culturally collectivist minority." The factors driving Russia away from authoritarianism have been cultural, political, and economic. I suspect, however, that the major force here is economic---given the enormous failure of socialism. But, as we all know, a turn-away from socialism is not necessarily an embrace of capitalism. (I recommend one very interesting book on how states move toward more, or less, interventionism in a response to the contradictions they cause in political economy: Sanford Ikeda's DYNAMICS OF THE MIXED ECONOMY: TOWARD A THEORY OF INTERVENTIONISM.)

2. David writes: "It is because of Rand's feelings about Israel that I think she would have supported the occupation of Iraq." She may have, or not. I don't pretend to know ~exactly~ what she would have argued, and I do ~not~ claim to speak in her name. What I do claim is a ~reclamation~ of the radical legacy she left us. One can reasonably argue for or against the Iraqi war; but if one wishes to claim Rand's mantle, one cannot drop the context of "the New Fascism" that Rand insisted on keeping.

3. David writes: "'Peace and security' is the crux. Many Objectivists accept the premise that this version of democracy, whatever its flaws, will at least promote peace." The problem, however, is that Rand herself recognized how US foreign policy was creating dislocations world-wide; this version of democracy has ~internationalized~ the domestic policy of "pull-peddling." To pull a single thread from the complex tapestry that is "the New Fascism," and to act as if we can create a new tapestry (known as "Iraqi democracy") as if the rest of the tapestry doesn't exist is, quite simply, the very "context-dropping" against which Rand railed.

4. I agree with David when he says that Iraq ~could~ get "the kind of 'capitalism' symbolized by the World Trade towers - which were state subsidized buildings for managing state subsidized trade."

I wish to state something very clearly, however: I don't believe this implies---or that David implies---that those Towers should have been destroyed ~because~ of their state-subsidization. (Alas, we'd have to start destroying everything from roads to electric utility stations if that were implied here.)

I wish to state the obvious in this regard because ~nothing~ I've said in this article or these discussions should ~ever~ imply that I believe "we" got what "we" deserved on 9/11. Providing an ~explanation~ of the origins of 9/11 that points to the role of US foreign policy does ~not~ imply that the terrorists were ~justified~ in attacking us and killing thousands of innocent people. There is a crucial difference between ~explanation~ and ~justification~ that must not be obscured.

I was home in Brooklyn on that bright sunny morning of 9/11; I saw the sky blacken. I was hit by snowing human ash. I lost friends and colleagues in the rubble of that murderous disaster. Opposing those aspects of US policy that may have contributed to the origins of that disaster does not mean that I oppose those actions that must be taken to root-out and destroy the Al Qaeda network that is responsible.

5. Thanks, David, for those very interesting passages from de Tocqueville and Machiavelli; another very interesting book discussing the middle class role in democracy---and dictatorship is Barrington Moore's SOCIAL ORIGINS OF DICTATORSHIP AND DEMOCRACY: LORD AND PEASANT IN THE MAKING OF THE MODERN WORLD. Moore has a Marxist pedigree, but that doesn't stop him from some very insightful analysis.

6. David writes: "I thought you meant to suggest that this 'modicum of cultural change' must take place before it could be 'possible to construct a political solution.' " This is another ~very~ complex question; the tri-level model of Rand's analysis that I use implies reciprocally reinforcing causes and effects, which means that while culture may be a predominating force in any given context, it still interacts with personal and structural factors. In his lecture on "The Psychological Foundations of the Free Society," Nathaniel Branden observes correctly that there is "reciprocal action" among philosophical, moral, political, psychological, sociological, economic, and cultural factors, "each reinforcing the other, each better illuminating the other." This means, therefore, that if we want to work on changing society, we must do so on ~each~ level to the extent that we can.

7. I want to thank Michelle Fram-Cohen for posting here as well. (For those unacquainted with Michelle's work, I'd like to heartily recommend her essay, "Poetry and History: The Two Levels of ~Ninety-Three," in THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES. See http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/v3_n1/3_1toc.asp#mfc ; indeed, I never lose an opportunity to promote the journal I edit. :) )

I too would enjoy hearing more from Dennis on the issues he raises.

Cheers,
Chris

Post 34

Monday, May 26, 2003 - 1:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When I first became a libertarian, back in 1979, it was under Rand's influence, and via that influence I became something of a cold-war hawk. I knew about the anti-cold-war version of libertarianism but disagreed with it. I remember back in the early 80s marching with a bunch of other college conservatives (yes, I was a college conservative -- the horror, the horror!) to protest the Russian invasion of Aghanistan, and arguing with a young libertarian woman who was also protesting the invasion but who thought U.S. foreign policy was imperialistic too -- a view I considered crazy at the time.

It was in the late 80s that I began, as a result of various influences (including the Institute for Humane Studies, a radical hotbed in those days) to shift toward what might be called a more "radical" or "Rothbardian" (or maybe "left-Rothbardian," to distinguish it from Rothbard's "paleo" phase) version of libertarianism. Parts of that shift were a more critical view of U.S. foreign policy (partly triggered by Jonathan Kwitny's book _Endless Enemies_, hardly a Rothbardian tract!) and along with it a more critical view of the political role of big business. (The process eventually culminated in anarchism, but that's another story.)

Anyway: the point of all this is, I've always seen my political evolution from cold warrior to left-Rothbardian as a move AWAY from Rand's political analysis. I had come to think of foreign policy in particular as a blind spot for Rand. So what interested and surprised me about Chris's excellent article is that it shows how Rand was not quite so cold-warriorish and un-Rothbardian as I'd remembered. Her analysis of the "New Fascism" and its role in foreign policy has much more in common with my current views (which are broadly similar, though not identical, to Chris's) than I'd thought. I wasn't surprised that Rand's *principles* could be applied to defend an anti-cold-war stance (since I'd thought of myself as doing that); but I was surprised that Rand had to a considerable extent applied those principles in that way herself.

BUT -- I have the following question for Chris.

In "Philosophy: Who Needs It," which was (not coincidentally) an address at West Point, Rand says two thing that seem wildly out of keeping with the analysis of neofascist foreign policy that Chris rightly finds in Rand's writings. First, she claims that the United States "has never engaged in military conquest," a historically bizarre statement. Second, she denies the very EXISTENCE of the "military-industrial complex," calling it "a myth or worse." THAT'S the Rand that I'd thought of myself as breaking away from on these issues. So my question for Chris is, how should the relation between those remarks and her critique of neofascism be understood? Was she simply inconsistent, or did she have some intermediate view I've failed to grasp?

Roderick

Post 35

Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 2:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred- Although the following link is to an often quite Right slanted view of events, the article raises a very good argument with evidence for believing that the al-queda/Iraqi link was quite real and ongoing.
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/8/13/95502

David- I've heard about the 707. It was mentioned by a fat ex-military guy on some TV talk show.

This article contains a major howler. "'It was a nightmare! A very strange experience,' the Iraqi agent said. 'These guys would stop and insist on praying to Allah five times a day when we had training to do. The instructors wouldn't get home till late at night, just because of all this praying.'"

*All* Muslims pray five times a day. Anyone who grew up in an Islamic country, would know that, even if his family weren't Muslims. A city shutting down five times a day is hard to ignore.

It's also one of the first things anyone learns about Islam who learns anything about Islam. There's some colossal ignorance on display here.

"Though the Bush administration has been largely silent about Salman Pak . . ."

Why is the administration so reticent about such important evidence? Maybe they know, or suspect, that it won't hold up under scrutiny. Maybe they want to circulate the meme without provoking a real investigation.

If this isn't bogus, why isn't it being shouted from the rooftops?

Post 36

Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 5:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Roderick and David, for your additional posts. Here I answer David; in the next post, I answer Roderick.

I think I’m as perplexed as David is over the Salman Pak link. I suspect that if that evidence had been unimpeachable, the Bush administration would have been proclaiming it from the “rooftops” as David says.

As it stands, there are troubling questions about the intelligence on the road to Iraq, with which the administration was provided: either the administration ~hyped~ the intelligence by exaggerating the importance of WMDs (which may indeed exist, but have yet to be found) and the formal links between Al Qaeda and Hussein (which have never been established) or it ~ignored~ the intelligence it received on both questions. In either event, it’s not good for U.S. credibility. When I made this point in an offlist message, one individual dismissed the notion of “U.S. credibility,” since the U.S. has nothing to prove to the French, the Russians, the Germans, and the host of anti-American diplomats being housed at the U.N.

But, for me, this is an issue of U.S. credibility with ~its own citizens~. It is often said that the first casualty of war is truth. Let’s not forget that the biggest casualty of the Vietnam War was not only the thousands of American conscripts who were killed in that tragedy; it was the ~truth~. Rand spoke of the “intellectual crimes” that led up to the Vietnam war (see “The Lessons of Vietnam”). But there were ~real~ crimes as well, in which the U.S. government ~lied~ about everything from the Gulf of Tonkin on up (see THE PENTAGON PAPERS). This, coupled with the Watergate scandal, created a dynamic in American life that led to deep, and justified, distrust of government on every level. And when one considers the ~uncritical~ role played by embedded journalists in the Iraqi invasion, constituting, in some respects, what Rand called a “servile press” [see my article], one shudders at the possibilities for distortions in the information-gathering process surrounding the most recent war.

Cheers,
Chris

Post 37

Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 5:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I’d like to thank Roderick for his comments. I appreciate the kinds of attitudes that may have turned him off to Rand on some foreign policy questions; when I sent out my announcement of this essay, I called it “Randian Foreign Policy Revisionism” for a reason... it was to counteract the conventional view of Rand’s position, for which, of course, there is certainly some evidence in her writings and lectures.

Roderick raises some very important issues with regard to certain inconsistencies in Rand. He asks about the relationship between her critique of neofascism and her remarks in the essay, “Philosophy: Who Needs It” (where she denies the existence of the “military-industrial complex” and the belief that America ever embarked on imperial conquest). Roderick wonders if Rand was being inconsistent, or if she had “some intermediate view.” Before answering that question, let me present the full passage in question. Rand writes:

“There is a special reason why you, the future leaders of the United States Army, need to be philosophically armed today. You are the target of a special attack by the Kantian-Hegelian-collectivist establishment that dominates our cultural institutions at present. You are the army of the last semi-free country left on earth, yet you are accused of being a tool of imperialism—and ‘imperialism’ is the name given to the foreign policy of this country, which has never engaged in military conquest and has never profited from the two world wars, which she did not initiate, but entered and won. (It was, incidentally, a foolishly overgenerous policy, which made this country waste her wealth on helping both her allies and her former enemies.) Something called ‘the military-industrial complex’—which is a myth or worse—is being blamed for all of this country's troubles. Bloody college hoodlums scream demands that R.O.T.C. units be banned from college campuses. Our defense budget is being attacked, denounced and undercut by people who claim that financial priority should be given to ecological rose gardens and to classes in esthetic self-expression for the residents of the slums.”

A few interesting things about this passage should be noted. First, this was addressed to the graduates of the military academy at West Point in 1974. Rand may have opposed the Vietnam War, but her criticisms were leveled at the political leaders and intellectual architects of that war, not at the troops who fought it. In a letter to Doris Gordon (30 May 1973), Rand once argued: “One is free to disagree with the government of one's country on any issue, including its foreign policy, but one has no right to express one's sympathy with the enemy in wartime, because this amounts to sanctioning the killing of one's countrymen.” So I think that Rand’s comments here should be contextualized by this general attitude toward the U.S. military. I also think that we can’t abstract her comments from her intense opposition to the New Left underpinnings of those who typically protested the Vietnam war (hence, her noting of the conflict between expenditures on defense, a legitimate function of government in Rand’s view, and expenditures on ecology, a tribalist “anti-industrial” movement in Rand’s view).

Still, I think that the passage in question is problematic given her broader views. For example, in “The Roots of War,” Rand clearly recognizes that while “capitalistic imperialism” is a myth, since capitalism as such is based on free trade, the “repressive” elements in the mixed economy will drive statist policies toward conquest of foreign markets. She also recognizes the statist underpinnings of the policies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and endorses Arthur Ekirch’s view of “the spirit of imperialism” that dominated the foreign policies of the “collectivist reformers.”

Rand was also aware of the jingoistic roots of the Spanish-American War (another exercise in the distortion of truth; see my previous message above), which even “conventional” historians view as imperialist. In her notes while writing THE FOUNTAINHEAD, for example, Rand draws from many of the concretes in the life of William Randolph Hearst as she crafts the character of Gail Wynand. She writes on 12 December 1938:

“Hearst started agitating for the Spanish-American War in order to create ‘live’ news. There was a story, unproved, but considered possible: Hearst sent special correspondents to Cuba, one of whom was Frederic Remington, the eminent artist, who drew notable sketches of Spanish cruelty. After a short time Remington sent this telegram from Havana: ‘W. R. Hearst, New York Journal, NY: Everything is quiet. There is no trouble here. There will be no war. I wish to return. Remington.’ This is the answer Hearst is said to have written: ‘Remington, Havana: Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war. W. R. Hearst.’”

On the broader issue of the “military-industrial complex,” I suspect that, because Rand places this phrase in scare quotes, she’s reacting against the portrait put forth by New Leftists who pinned the blame on “capitalism” rather than its opposite. Rand may also be interpreting “imperialism” narrowly as physical, military conquest, rather than, the kind of “socialism for big business” that was internationalized in the “New Fascism,” which she, herself, saw as the root of much global conflict.

Interestingly, of course, it was not the New Left that first warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex; it was none other than President Dwight D. Eisenhower. And, writing ATLAS SHRUGGED in the era of Ike, Rand herself recognized the incestuous and corrupting relationships among government, business, science, and the military (see, for example, her portrait of “Project X”).

It is perhaps ironic that Rand’s fictional critique of this military-industrial-science nexus may have actually inspired some of the rebels of the 1960s student antiwar movement. In his book, IN PRAISE OF DECADENCE, Jeff Riggenbach writes:

“Did the young people of the ‘60s hold a dim view of the ‘military-industrial complex’? Well, they certainly found nothing in ATLAS SHRUGGED that would be likely to make them reconsider that attitude. In fact, if one were to judge the worlds of government, big business, and the scientific establishment purely on the basis of reading ATLAS SHRUGGED, one would have to conclude that almost all big businessmen are parasitic incompetents who owe their profits to special deals worked out for them by politicians, that the scientific establishment is nothing but an arm of government, and that the principal function of government is to employ stolen resources in the invention of loathsome weapons of mass destruction.”

I explore some of the parallels between Rand and the counterculture in a forthcoming Fall 2003 essay in THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES, a rejoinder I’ve written to seven critiques of my essay on “Rand, Rush, and Rock,” which appeared in the Fall 2002 issue:

http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/v4_n1/4_1toc.asp#cms

Cheers,
Chris

Post 38

Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 6:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As an aside, I wish to note that one person who raised some objections to my article on another list has commented on that list that he refuses to post his objections to this SOLO HQ discussion. This, despite my invitation to him and others to post here (because I'd prefer to deal with the critiques in ~one~ place, rather than across a dozen lists to which the announcement was posted).

The person replied on the list that he wasn't "a 'homeless Objectivist'" which, apparently, is "the absurd premise" of SOLO, a "ridiculous notion" to which he does not wish to contribute. (As another poster remarked, "no good deed"---like my invitation---"goes unpunished.")

Of course, his refusal to post to SOLO is his prerogative, but his reaction was not surprising in the least.

I was reminded offlist, by another reader, of one sentence in my essay that might be appropriate in this context:

"Fundamentalists of any sort always begin by attacking the 'impure' among their own faithful."

Cheers,
Chris

Post 39

Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 11:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
:Chris- . . . when I sent out my announcement of this essay, I called it “Randian Foreign Policy Revisionism” for a reason... it was to counteract the conventional view of Rand’s position, for which, of course, there is certainly some evidence in her writings and lectures.

David- I was never an Objectivist, but as a teenager I was sufficiently enamored of Rand to read everything she wrote that I could lay hands on. Her position on the Second World War, unaffected by Pearl Harbor or Dachau, impressed me as much as any of her other unconventional views. I was quite surprised to find that some Objectivists don't know that she was an America Firster.

Rand said repeatedly that a free country should only intervene against tyrants when it served its own interests to do so. To do so only for the sake of the oppressed people, she held as damnable altruism.

For Objectivists like Mr. Perigo, Rand was a "lover" of Hitler and Ho Chi Minh.

:Chris- For example, in “The Roots of War,” Rand clearly recognizes that while “capitalistic imperialism” is a myth, since capitalism as such is based on free trade . . .

David- This is a non sequitur. Acts of imperialism have been committed in the name of free trade. The U.S. persuaded the Japanese to lower trade barriers by threatening a naval bombardment, and the British fought an "Opium War" with China.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.