Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion

This topic discusses various dictatorships in human history. Both totalitarian and authoritarian regimes will be considered. Although I am initiating this topic, I encourage group members to contribute, especially those around the world who have had personal experience living under dictatorships of one kind or another. Understandably, those still living under dictatorships may feel a need to be reticent about expressing their views unless they have sufficiently disguised their identity in the Goodreads platform.

September 17, 2022 Note: See also the International Populist Authoritarianism topic.

Remarks on the former U.S.S.R.:

The former Soviet Union would have been considered a democratic republic elected by the people with full recognition of individual rights if one consulted only its written constitution. Such constitutional protections were, on paper, in effect during and after some of the worst years of Joseph Stalin's tyranny, including Stalin's mass arrests, show trials, and executions of officials, military officers, and peasants. The Communist Party (under the personal dictatorship of Stalin after the consolidation of his power) controlled the Soviet regime in reality, notwithstanding the rights trumpeted in its written constitution. 1936 Constitution of the U.S.S.R., accessed December 11, 2012. Cf. Nikita Khrushchev, Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev, ed. Sergei Khrushchev, trans. George Shriver, vol. 1, Commissar (1918-1945) (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), 78-196, 216; ibid., vol. 2, Reformer (1945-64) (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006), 82-91, 98-170; Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 319-22 (adoption of 1936 Constitution and its aftermath), 336-56 (Stalin's "Great Terror").

Remarks on the current Putin regime in Russia:

See my review of Masha Gessen's Words Will Break Cement: The Passion of Pussy Riot (New York: Riverhead Books, 2014). Gessen discusses in depth how current Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has forged a strong connection between the Russian state and the Russian Orthodox Church to implement his political program. The protests of Pussy Riot against the Putin regime were designed, in part, to highlight this unnatural merging of church and state.

Masha Gessen has also written an excellent book entitled The Man without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin (New York: Riverhead Books, 2012). Both of her books dispel any illusion that Putin is anything other than a dictator.

Dr. Norman Doidge, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who is an expert on neuroplasticity, has commented as follows about totalitarian and related brainwashing:

"[T]otalitarian regimes seem to have an intuitive awareness that it becomes hard for people to change after a certain age, which is why so much effort is made to indoctrinate the young from an early age. For instance, North Korea, the most thoroughgoing totalitarian regime in existence, places children in school from ages two and a half to four years; they spend almost every waking hour being immersed in a cult of adoration for dictator Kim Jong Il and his father, Kim Il Sung. They can see their parents only on weekends. Practically every story read to them is about the leader. Forty percent of the primary school textbooks are devoted wholly to describing the two Kims. This continues all the way through school. Hatred of the enemy is drilled in with massed practice as well, so that a brain circuit forms linking the perception of 'the enemy' with negative emotions automatically. A typical math quiz asks, 'Three soldiers from the Korean People’s Army killed thirty American soldiers. How many American soldiers were killed by each of them, if they all killed an equal number of enemy soldiers?' Such perceptual emotional networks, once established in an indoctrinated people, do not lead only to mere 'differences of opinion' between them and their adversaries, but to plasticity-based anatomical differences, which are much harder to bridge or overcome with ordinary persuasion.

"[C]ertain practices used by cults, or in brainwashing, which obey the laws of neuroplasticity, demonstrate that sometimes individual identities can be changed in adulthood, even against a person’s will. Human beings can be broken down and then develop, or at least 'add on,' neurocognitive structures, if their daily lives can be totally controlled, and they can be conditioned by reward and severe punishment and subjected to massed practice, where they are forced to repeat or mentally rehearse various ideological statements. In some cases, this process can actually lead them to 'unlearn' their preexisting mental structures, as Walter Freeman has observed. These unpleasant outcomes would not be possible if the adult brain were not plastic."

Norman Doidge, The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science (New York: Penguin, 2007), 305-06.

This remark may be tangential, but it's on my mind so ...well, I just want to comment that I'm amazed by what the average-man-in-the-street these days 'chooses to remember' about Hitler and Nazi-Socialism.

For instance, you will get the pro-gun lobby who hurry to remind us that, 'the first thing Hitler did was remove citizen's handguns'.

I've spoken to conservatives who admonish me to remember that Hitler 'was a socialist' and 'you see where socialism leads'.

More recently someone very law&order-minded informed me that, 'the very first thing Hitler did' was to 'destroy the German constitution and replace it with his own'.

I've even heard people these days telling me that 'the immigration policy Hitler originally wanted wasn't necessarily evil'.

All sorts of random spoutings of this sort. The land is crying out for better scholarship. We're sure not getting it either by TV or the glorious internet (present company excepted, natch). As always, people bend history to suit their motivation. But it seems that lately it's easier than ever to do so?

p.s. I've actually been doing a very tiny bit of research lately into the Marcos regime in the Phillipines. If there's any discussion in the group which touches on this, I can recommend a couple titles I've found useful.

Something else I'm curious about is learning more about Pol Pot. However, I don't have a writing project which could spur me anywhere in his direction and so I can't spare the time.

Feliks wrote: "This remark may be tangential, but it's on my mind so ...well, I just want to comment that I'm amazed by what the average-man-in-the-street these days 'chooses to remember' about Hitler and Nazi-So..."
Just saw your comment and had to respond with my agreement regarding general know,edge about Hitler. I will take it further and suggest that it has less to do with bending history than a very hollow knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the actual past. I recently finished Hannah Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism" . While a challenging and dense read, it should be read by as many as possible for its powerful statement of the cause of The Nazi perversion. For most Americans, the times she describes seem like ancient history without any lessons for our time. Perhaps not, but at least they are important lessons about human nature and the fragility of political institutions that are built on sand or not supported and strengthened over time.
It seems like the culture has forgotten the 20th century in its rapid pursuit of the benefits of the 21st. One does not have to be an intellectual to understand that a century in which one set of humans killed 100 million of another set of humans over a 50 year time period is important, essential to understanding the human condition.

I was born in the first wave of "baby boomers" following World War II. My father served on the European front and entered France about twenty days after D-Day. As he was an assistant chaplain in an engineering battalion, he didn't have to fight, but I recall his many stories about his experiences. I recently visited one of my sisters in another state. A former teacher, she is the family historian. When I was there, I reviewed my father's photographs and correspondence (which we had mistakenly thought had been lost at or before the time my mother died a few years ago) from World War II. The photos included pictures of skeletons in concentration camps that my father's group, following the front lines, visited. They also included some photos left behind by the quickly departed German army, including a photo of Hitler apparently taken by a German soldier when Der Fuehrer visited his military group.

To those of us growing up in the 1950s, World War II was a recent event, not ancient history. Although my father was not a historical scholar, he provided considerable information about the war to my sisters and me, much of it based on his own experiences. My mother told us about what occurred on the home front. As I continued my education, both in school and in my own reading, I came to understand quite clearly the similarities and differences between communism and Nazism/fascism. For example, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao all established totalitarian regimes. But Hitler and Mussolini (who was the early theorist of twentieth-century fascism) were not "socialist" in Marx's sense of the word. Rather, they instituted a system based on heavy governmental regulation of basic industries, which remained "capitalist" at least in form. The purpose of this regulation was not to benefit lower economic classes but rather to further the military might of the state. Nazism/fascism was a form of totalitarianism that was based on hierarchical (especially military) principles and that was predicated on hatred of certain racial or ethnic groups. Soviet and Maoist communism was inspired by Marxian utopianism, including a "scientific" view of history that was basically a kind of secular theology intended to replace religion. In practice, of course, Stalinist totalitarianism had much in common with Nazi totalitarianism. Nevertheless, the Western powers (US, UK, French Resistance, etc.) allied with Stalin's USSR to defeat Hitler. Justifying this sort of unholy alliance, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously said, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." Although Churchill understood well the imperatives of a military balance of power during the war, he had no illusions about the Soviet Union and generally opposed any postwar arrangement that would leave large portions of Europe under Stalin's thumb. But this is in itself a long story, which I will not take space to relate here. Hundreds, probably thousands, of books have been written about it, including Churchill's own magisterial multivolume history of the war.

The preceding posts in this topic are correct that current generations do not have accurate knowledge of twentieth-century totalitarianism. That is doubtless the fault of both Left and Right in deciding what curriculum is appropriate for today's students. Still, the problems faced by the twenty-first century are different in many respects from those of the twentieth. Although Russia and China have emerged from the wreckage of their twentieth-century history as newly rising powers, they are not driven so much by Stalinist or Maoist ideology as by nineteenth-century big power politics. However, religious and theocratic fanaticism has become dominant in the Middle East and elsewhere, including some pockets of the United States. North Korea may be the only remnant of Stalinist totalitarianism in its purer form, while the Iranian theocracy similarly presents challenges to US foreign policy. Both North Korea and Iran are of concern as a result of their possession (real or potential) of nuclear weapons. But I digress. It is important that we understand the nature of twentieth-century totalitarian regimes. It is also important that we not be merely prepared, as were France and Britain before World War II, to fight the last war (in that case, World War I). Each age presents its unique challenges. But, of course, those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it, albeit in a different iteration.

Interesting comments and discussions by all here. In response to Feliks's comment about Hitler's "socialism"; I think we owe this particular false meme especially to F. A. Hayek and his followers. His most widely read book revolves around this false premise. So maybe not just lack of scholarship, but indulgence in false scholarship, is at fault here.

Charles's mention of Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism reminds me of this old mentor. I don't own a copy anymore of this book, but your mention prompts me to correct that for a re-read. Professor Arendt was THE champion of political theory in the twentieth century and of the human need for politics, and from that perspective the opposite from Hayek's libertarian mania. A very complex person, a Jew who maintained a relationship with the Nazi Heidegger, not throughout their lives, but continuing into their old age after an hiatus during the years of the rise of Hitler and the immediate post-war period.

Alan's mention of the alliance between Britain and the United States and Stalin's Soviet Union is much in my mind as I am now reading a terrific book about the international economics of the interwar years, The Summit, and leading up to the Bretton Woods conference. I think Keynes, as insufferable as he could be, was the greatest political economist of the twentieth century. The author of this book, Ed Conway, a Brit, provides the first relatively detailed description that I have read of Keynes's plan for international economic management put forward in the two years prior to Bretton Woods. Some elements of it were adopted by the final agreement, initially crafted by Harry Dexter White for Roosevelt's Treasury Department. Keynes truly envisioned a "Eutopia" in which international deficits and surpluses that had caused the great depression and which still rage across our planet would be corralled by a "Clearing Union" that would run a surplus that would enable it to "finance an international police force and an organization to provide economic relief and development aid." Clearly, such a body was unacceptable to the US Congress and to Americans in general at the time and today, much to our loss. It is interesting that both Keynes's and White's plans included an international currency, Keynes's "bancor" and White's "Unitas", neither of which survived in real form in the institutions (The IMF and World Bank) that came out of Bretton Woods.

And yes, Alan, we too often get stuck in looking backwards and trying to apply theoretical goggles formed in previous eras to our different problems. As we move forward, polluting our planet with carbon dioxide and extinguishing species, we are sure to have need of theories that place more value on collective survival than on individual "liberty." But, from the looks of our current politics, we are more likely to let that liberty drown us all.

No cheers for that!

Randal wrote: "Interesting comments and discussions by all here. In response to Feliks's comment about Hitler's "socialism"; I think we owe this particular false meme especially to F. A. Hayek and his followers. ..."

Thank you for the recommendation of Conway's book. I have put it on my Goodreads and Amazon Wish Lists. I'm pretty sure this is not on the Tea Party's Top Ten list.

Another book on my lists is Roger Lowenstein's America's Bank: The Epic Struggle to Create the Federal Reserve (New York: Penguin, 2015).

I won't comment at this time on your statement that "Professor Arendt was THE champion of political theory in the twentieth century and of the human need for politics," since I have not read much of Arendt and that not recently. For a dispassionate comparison of the thought of Martin Heidegger, Leo Strauss, and Hannah Arendt, see Chapter 10 of Leo Strauss and the Problem of Political Philosophy by Michael P. and Catherine H. Zuckert (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014).

Felik's comment made me a think about a remark from a RIGHT wing friend of mine. In the UK we currently have a lot of nationalist issues in respect of European Union membership meaning prominent left wingers in the media have to decide if they are in or out of membership. Whenever a leftwinger says they want out of the EU my friend makes his witty comment: "a socialist who is a nationalist...national socialism, we all know where that leads!"

Saying that Hitler was a socialist is about as right as north korea being a democratic people's republic.

Edit - typo, my friend is definitely on the right not the left!

You all contributed very well to my post above. Thanks.

Bad scholarship, indeed. We're prey to it in modern times to an inordinate degree. Sometimes it feels as if --for all intents and purposes--we're still back in ancient Rome listening to soothsayers, oracles, and entrail-readings. Why, we might invade another nation tomorrow if an ox liver burns with a green flame on a silver salver.

Lack of rationale and rigor...there's such a dearth lately that I almost don't want to have a serious discussion (on ANY topic) with anyone I don't know very well. The exchange quickly runs aground.

I just can't trust very many people anymore to have the proper equipment for debate. Even individuals who pride themselves on following 'current events' (actually these are some of the worst offenders, because their heads are filled with misinformation). And people wearing buttons and slogans--forget it--they disturb me the most.

Why? Because no one these days ever seems to recognize a logical fallacy when they hear it. Logic/reasoning ought to be a mandatory course in every high school in America; but its given just about as much credibility as a painting class. If you use even a simple term like 'Venn diagram' you get blank looks from some adults.

Critical thinking! Knowing when you're listening to an unsupported argument. Where is that ability, these days.

Feliks wrote: "Critical thinking! Knowing when you're listening to an unsupported argument. Where is that ability, these days."

Very well said, Feliks. Your post states my thoughts exactly. Thanks also to the other contributors to this topic, who have all posted excellent remarks.

Thanks! I already told you all about that one knucklehead I met who was ready to punch me out ...to ensure I grasped how ethically he stands on the concept of non-violence. Groan. Perfect example of what I tend to run into.

By the way, (pursuant to that) these are the names of some cases in international law which have shaped the definition of 'political' crimes vs 'civil' crimes. They come to the fore in any situation involving extradition (will just place these here for reference, in case anyone is keen).

Zoyad Abu Eain
Costioni
Mounier
Kolcynski
Ezeter
Ornelas vs Ruis
Ramos vs Diaz
Gonzalez

I'm reading the Crowd right now, after just finishing Le Bon's Psychology of Revolution. Comparing it to history, and what we are seeing with these populist movements in Europe, and America, seem to be history repeating. I believe he was correct that Socialism is enacted as a religion, and when the collective starts to dominate society reason is not listened to. And since reason is ignored, Newton's law of politics comes into effect, an equally unreasonable (more violent if successful) conservative collective. I believe any Fascist, socialist, or communist government will either gain absolute control, or lead to an opposing form of totalitarianism, unless defeated from without, like Nazi Germany, or smaller dictatorships knocked over by foreign manipulation. Even when things stabilize they will drift back as we currently see in Europe due to Bourgeois Socialism using immigration for it's voter block, cheap labor, and breakdown of national identity. This is why I disagree with the above poster on "drowning in liberty". Individual liberty is what keeps the collective away. A nation founded on it and limited government, which has had it's share of problems still only had one civil war (over slavery), 200 years of prosperity (even when doing bad, in relativity we have done well), and though we had our wars we have not had what Europe has had for two hundred years, including the French revolution, a perfect example of collectivism. You all seem more educated than me so I'd be interested in what you think.

Feliks wrote: "Thanks! I already told you all about that one knucklehead I met who was ready to punch me out ...to ensure I grasped how ethically he stands on the concept of non-violence. Groan. Perfect example o..."

Thanks for the info.

Aidan Chavasse wrote: "I'm reading the Crowd right now, after just finishing Le Bon's Psychology of Revolution. Comparing it to history, and what we are seeing with these populist movements in Europe, and America, seem t..."

I think you are incorrectly associating what Bernie Sanders calls "democratic socialism" (as in the Scandinavian countries) with Communist totalitarianism (as in the twentieth-century Soviet Union). The present Goodreads group includes people of many different ideological orientations, and all are welcome as long as they do not advocate violence. For some different perspectives on some of these issues, you might be interested in reading the posts in the following, among other, topics: Government and the Economy; Property Rights, Types of Government: United States Constitution and Government, Classical Liberalism; Libertarianism and Anarchocapitalism; Objectivism, The Philosophy of Capitalism, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and James Madison (1751-1836), and Karl Marx (1818-1883); Communism; Socialism.

Addendum to my preceding post:

I must admit that I was ignorant about Gustave Le Bon before reading your post. I just looked at the Wikipedia article on him, where I found the following statement: "In 1879, Gustave Le Bon put forth many essentialist arguments to promote negative views of women, in particular that 'there are a large number of women whose brains are closer in size to gorillas than to the most developed male brains', that 'they represent inferior forms of human evolution' and that 'they excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason.' He concluded that it would be dangerous to provide the same education to girls as boys." Sounds like he would have been a Trump supporter had he been alive today. He might also have admired Trump's use of propaganda and mass psychology.

By the way, this modern term of "essentialism" is also new to me. According to Wikipedia, there is such a thing called "gender essentialism," which appears to be an academic term for gender stereotyping. The tracing of "gender essentialism" back to Plato is, however, problematic. After all, in Plato's Republic, Socrates took the position that men and women were essentially equal and should have the same opportunities, at least in the guardian (top) class. Plato may have been, other than Sappho, the first feminist and gender nonessentialist. Plato and Aristotle did, of course, teach that different species (not genders) had different essential natures. Although Plato and Aristotle had no knowledge of evolution, they were not far off the mark in describing various species as they have existed in recorded history.

Please forgive my use of Wikipedia. Although I have often found it more informative and accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica, I use it only as an initial introduction to a subject matter that is new to me. If anyone has better knowledge of what I have stated about Le Bon and essentialism, they can correct me.

Aidan Chavasse wrote: "This is why I disagree with the above poster on "drowning in liberty". Individual liberty is what keeps the collective away..."

I think I am the poster who coined that phrase about "drowning in liberty." I can think of no more apt phrase to describe a bee-hive of human activity exhaling carbon dioxide into a common atmosphere with no collective limits on the liberty to do so, regardless of a consequence that floods the constructive enterprise of the last 250 years, eliminates ocean circulations and destroys vast ecosystems by acidification and global warming. No doubt life will go on as we worship the god of liberty, but perhaps it will be the sulfur bacteria that will be the organisms to benefit. I myself have human children and wonder whether human cooperation might be a better path. Just wondering.

Aidan, I apologize for accidentally deleting your post 20. I was trying to delete my own post (then numbered 21) in order to replace it. I have been able to restore your original post 20 only from the email that I received notifying me of it. Here is the text of that email:

"Aidan Chavasse posted a new comment on Political Philosophy and Ethics topic: "Types of Government: Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes" on Goodreads.
Comment:
Alan wrote: "Aidan Chavasse wrote: "I'm reading the Crowd right now, after just finishing Le Bon's Psychology of Revolution. Comparing it to history, and what we are seeing with these populist movements in Euro..." No for socialism I was referring to the idea of forced equal outcomes and indoctrination to accept the ideal with silencing those opposed, to include what Marx referred to as Bourgeois Socialism, and in education create what he called the Petty Socialist, and Utopian Socialist, who are exploited by the Bourgeois Socialist. In psychology of Revolution he was referring to the socialist goals of the Jacobins, Robespierre etch, and the ideal of "equal happiness for all". I should have elaborated on the difference between Ambient Homogeneous Totalitarianism as they have in Scandinavian countries, enforced collectively, educationally, and the overt Totalitarianism. Even right now in Sweden as the populace looks to check environmental regulation and overspending, the leftist side of government has tried to increase immigration and dismissed things like rape and crime (77% of which is caused by male Muslims), the result of which has been Nationalistic Socialist backlash, which includes much human cooperation. I don't think he would have liked Trump, his statements on Conservatism were just as damning, he had an equally bleak outlook on most philosophies, and most likely would have thought of him the way he thought of Napoleon, Nero, etch, he just thought that egalitarian were just as guilty of any one who did not side with them as the intolerance they claimed to be against, and trying to radically change a populace, and it's identity by force, physical or overt will lead to just as irrational a response. His views are a product of the times like Fred's, but I think some are still relevant. William Herr did a modern book called The Collective that takes Le Bon's writings and modernizes them. As for the human cooperation, we have had plenty of that over here without Socialism or Fascism. As Hemingway said in On War about people who praised Hitler for getting "making the trains run on time", that it was ludicrous because the trains ran on time here before without fascism. Thanks for the list of posts. I've read Marx, John Stuart Mill, Lenin, George Riesman, Alinsky, Obama's autobiography, and Soros on Soros, are there any other books/writers on this side of things you would recommend, or as I think you would support, more moderate socialists. "


The following are my comments in response to your above-quoted post:

The term "socialism" is quite ambiguous, having been used in many different ways by various writers since at least the nineteenth century. If I recall correctly (I haven't read Marx since the 1960s), Marx vehemently opposed social democracy (what Sanders calls "democratic socialism") on the ground that it still retained individual rights, an underlying capitalism, and other "bourgeois" values. I am not aware of anyone in the United States who, these days, advocates equality of outcomes (unless equal access to health care can be so described). All the political rhetoric, even on the Left, is for equality of opportunity. I don't know enough about other countries to describe their political movements.

History proves that a "command economy" does not work. Ergo, the demise of the Soviet Union and the fact that North Korea is tottering on its last legs. However, unfettered capitalism does not work either. For further reading, see the books cited in the topics I linked in post 17. An excellent book on this subject is Colin Woodard's American Character: A History of the Epic Struggle Between Individual Liberty and the Common Good, which I briefly reviewed here.

I agree entirely with Randal's comments in post 19. As I understand it, the Koch brothers et al. say that the answer to massive environmental degradation is evolution to adapt to the changed environmental circumstances. As Randal points out, this is unlikely to benefit human beings, though it may be good for some kinds of low-level bacteria. I might add that human evolution occurs over tens of thousands of years. The environmental damage now occurring will have devastating effects (is already having devastating effects) during the present century. Unfettered capitalism will not solve this problem because there is no short-term profit in the solution.

Alan wrote: "Aidan, I apologize for accidentally deleting your post 20. I was trying to delete my own post (then numbered 21) in order to replace it. I have been able to restore your original post 20 only from ..."
I don't believe in completely unfettered capitalism, or agree with that Koch brothers statement, any more than I agree with overregulation. I see the biggest way to solve the evils of capitalism is to remove their access to government, not to give government more power and control in the name of equal opportunity and good intentions. At the end of that post I wrote about Joe Madison's MLK speech saying we need both public planning and personal responsibility, I elaborated public planning without personal responsibility leads to irresponsible public planning will grow itself, therefore swallowing personal responsibility, which is the means of seizing equal opportunity. Overdependence leads to people that need help, a never ending segregated pool of intentionally created victims.
Yes you are correct Marx hated socialism, and predicted that the elites would give enough "help" to make themselves wanted, and little enough help to make themselves needed. He predicted this would lead to discontent and demand for more radical changes, causing the bourgeois to adopt those stances and empower more radical figures while exploiting them to stay in power. He also pegged the Kaiser's "True/German National Socialism" as a blue print of Hitler's National Socialism, elements of it were copied by Ford and Rockefeller when they funded compulsory education, they used a lot of radical psychologists and were for segregation and trying to "show blacks they were inferior through standardized testing", this is where the flag waving, "worship of liberty" and adherence to anything our government does on the right came from, and it has swung to the other end of the pendulum.
This is a historic battle between to forms of centralized government, that has historically lead to both communist, and fascist dictatorships. One poster mentioned Hayek, I haven't read his work, but I read Sowell's Vision of the Anointed, and he predicted the housing crash caused by lending in the name of "equal opportunity" (he shows how mortgage discrimination statistics were twisted, the first studies did not account for credit or income, when income and credit were accounted for the difference was 6% due to other factors. 11% unapproved for whites, 17% for blacks, since 17%is 60% more than 11% they said blacks were 60% more likely to be turned down than whites, thus the lending laws by Clinton that lead to irresponsible lending).
He also predicted Trump Similarly, while polarization is to others something to fear, to those with the vision of the anointed it is a confirmation of their own superiority to the benighted. Indeed, the very concept of polarization is usually applied only to the actions of the benighted in resisting the imposition of a new uniformity. Whether it is the mandatory busing of schoolchildren for racial balance or the imposition of new policies on gays in the military, these are not thought of by the anointed as polarization which they are creating. It is only those who object who are said to be creating polarization. One of the ominous consequences of such attitudes is that there is no logical stopping place in creating polarizations that may tear a society apart or lead to a backlash that can sweep aside not only such policies but also the basic institutions of a free society. Fascistic “strong men” have historically emerged with public support from those disgusted or alarmed by the breakdown of law and order and of traditional values. There is nothing in the prevailing vision to make the anointed stop before things reach that point. On the contrary, the warning signs of such an impending catastrophe may be seen by the anointed as only welcome indications of their own moral superiority to the benighted. This self-flattering and self-centered view of the world is also related to the constant seeking of “exciting” and “new” things. and a “liberation” from the constraints imposed by lesser beings. But once we drop the assumption of a wonderful specialness of the anointed— which is to say, once we acknowledge “a decent respect for the opinion of mankind,” as the Declaration of Independence put it—

Sowell, Thomas (2008-08-06). The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (pp. 246-247). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

Alan wrote: "Aidan, I apologize for accidentally deleting your post 20. I was trying to delete my own post (then numbered 21) in order to replace it. I have been able to restore your original post 20 only from ..."

By taking someone else's money and giving it to someone else that is a move towards an equal outcome. To go with the rhetoric of equality when the same opportunities are available for anyone who seizes them is forcing equality, just in an ambient manner and it constantly leaves out other reasons for inequality, different ways culture do things, such as Asians and Jews are more likely to be approved for home loans, have secondary education, earn higher incomes do to behavioral patterns, but in the religion of equality everything is racism, behavior and responsibility are dismissed. Other info, like blacks with an education being more likely to gain employment over whites, or African immigrants being twice as likely as whites to have a college degree are not discussed, because it leaves no role for government. When those who bring these facts up are continually dismissed it will lead towards totalitarianism, wether through fascist backlash, or the socialist elite becoming more extreme to retain it's power. I also wrote that Lebon correctly identified the use of criminal classes in revolution, regardless of politics, while Marx and Alinsky explicitly called for it, and it was taught at places like Acorn and the Midwest acadamy, under the name of Progressivism, a word designed to preempt arguments, taken by the CPUSA to disguise their Marxism, which became cultural and academic. An interesting thing about cultural Marxism is that it is based on race, which was as you stated a difference between Communism and Fascism, showing an evolution in totalitarianism that muddles the line. I wrote about a couple other things, but I've been on here long enough today. Thanks for the discussion and the book recommendations, I also downloaded a sample of your books. I'll leave it that on post 19 as far as environmentalism is concerned I agree and disagree on some things, but that's another can of worms I don't feel like opening, maybe next week. Have a good one.

Alan wrote: "Aidan, I apologize for accidentally deleting your post 20. I was trying to delete my own post (then numbered 21) in order to replace it. I have been able to restore your original post 20 only from ..."

And no problem for the delete it happens.

Aidan,

I see you have read many libertarian and conservative writers, e.g., Thomas Sowell. I encourage you to read the other side as well. A very well-balanced account of the causes of the 2008 stock market crash and ensuing Great Recession is set forth in All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera. This book shows the errors of many actors, both Left and Right, in causing the economic disaster of the late 2000s and early 2010s. Whatever some of the more remote, contributing causes, the immediate, proximate cause was the insane behavior of Wall Street, banks, AIG, etc. in the months and years leading up to the 2008 crash. Reading this book cured me of my erstwhile "fellow traveler" attitude toward libertarian theory. See also The Myth of the Rational Market: A History of Risk, Reward, and Delusion on Wall Street by Justin Fox. The topics I linked in my post 17 also cite and/or discuss many other relevant books.

Alan wrote: "Aidan,

I see you have read many libertarian and conservative writers, e.g., Thomas Sowell. I encourage you to read the other side as well. A very well-balanced account of the causes of the 2008 st..."
Cool, thanks for the recommendation, the ones that show the errors on both sides seem to be the hardest to find, or least publicized.

Unrelated question: I'm seeking information on United States protectorates, outlying areas, and minor US islands. This may not be the best place to ask, but can anyone steer me in the right direction? Specific interest in the laws of citizenship which are in effect therein, the social contract..rights, duties, privileges, thx!

Feliks wrote: "Unrelated question: I'm seeking information on United States protectorates, outlying areas, and minor US islands. This may not be the best place to ask, but can anyone steer me in the right directi..."

Interesting question. I've often wondered about the details of this. I'm not knowledgeable about it, but you might check back issues of The Federal Lawyer, which is the publication of the Federal Bar Association (FBA). They also have FBA chapters for some of the US territories, and you might be able to contact those chapters to find out additional information And, of course, some initial information is probably obtainable in standard encyclopedias.

If another group member has more specific information or research leads, they can post it or message you.

If you publish something on this, please let us know. If not, perhaps you could summarize the results of your research. It probably would be most appropriate to post such information in the Types of Government: United States Constitution and Government topic of this group.

It sounds like your inquiry has been initiated by the PR financial crisis and the Promesa legislation . If not my apologies ; however I have attached a link to a PR web site that offers some useful background as well as discussion around PROMESA legislation and US/PR history. PR is the oldest and largest US proto colony/protectorate via its "commonwealth " status -

http://www.puertoricoreport.com/

This is encouraging. Thanks.

As it happens, I'm actually not quite sure what I'm specifically looking for. It's more a case of 'I'll know it when I see it'. Yes, there's a general ballpark I have in mind: I'm trying to flesh out anything related to definitions of citizenship in these odd island provinces. Looking for any instances where citizenship laws became fouled up, entangled, knotty.

I'll keep poking around on my own and (heeding Alan's suggestion to post leads) I can name a few books that relate --albeit tangentially--to my search so far

Uninhabited Ocean Islands ...maps and describes a large number of as-yet unclaimed islands scattered around the seas which are ready for private ownership; as well as some info on more well-known islands in various states of nationhood or protectorate;

Blueprint for Paradise: How to Live on a Tropic Island..details how adventurers can dwell on such islands;

The Pacific Islands: Workplace...somewhat more a focus on flora/fauna but also talks in great detail about the culture, colonization, and development of Micronesia into western-recognized nations.

You might also be aware/interested in the concept of things like 'Maunsell Forts' --WWII structures off the coast of Britain (said to be the world's smallest registered nations?) They're currently occupied by 'guerilla' ISP providers who wish to flout the increasingly-regulated internet. Or, the similar history of 'pirate radio' ships and suchlike.

And then there's the recent reading-up I've done on extradition of political persons between the Marcos-era Philippines and America; (no title to cite here yet, but I can provide one very obscure college treatise if anyone's intrigued).

All this above is merely my starting point however; as I am particularly keen now on citizenship matters more than anything else.

None of this musing is for any 'formal' legal or historical research project, mind you. It is still pretty fascinating, nonetheless. Island nations provide instances of 'exception to the rules' which may often illustrate just how well our laws are disposed, eh? 'Island'--as a concept in itself-- is simply rich as well. Thanks!

Research hunt continuing! I've got mostly what I need for the topic of island protectorates.

Now I'm looking for some leads on an even more obscure topic. Question: does anyone know where I can find descriptions of what actually goes on in G-8 summits? Or meetings of the IMF or World Bank? Do they ever make their meeting-minutes available? I don't want anything that's simply reported second-hand, as one might find in the newsmedia. I'm curious about the actual internal goings-on which transpire behind closed-doors. How are these meetings moderated? Are the records of summits which have occurred in the past, accessible? I do have a book on how the UN is organized and run; which is not very helpful but it's all I have. But for these other organizations, I'd like something more than just a technical document detailing how the bodies are formed and arranged.

Feliks wrote: "Research hunt continuing! I've got mostly what I need for the topic of island protectorates.

Now I'm looking for some leads on an even more obscure topic. Question: does anyone know where I can fi..."

I gather that you have already checked their websites to see whether they have posted such records. I know from having been a lawyer for local governments in the US that the latter frequently post such records online, but I don't know whether that applies to the institutions you are referencing. Local governments in the US are usually required by law to have open records; the organizations in which you are interested may keep such records secret, thus contributing to various conspiracy memes regarding them. But I don't really know. Perhaps one or more members of this group have better knowledge than I about such matters.

I was unable to gain access to proceedings of most recent IMF annual meetings though was able to get this, its only a summary of proceedings and committee meetings and its from 2010, an eternity from 2016.

http://www.imf.org/external/am/2010/i...

Thank you! I will look into this...even if I can simply get a feel for the flavor of their language; their style of speech and idiom--this will also be useful. What kind of settings they meet in; what kind of building; what kind of topics are discussed. What might be the true import of any one of their decisions, chosen at random, if you read it 'between-the-lines'...

Political murder is alive and well in Russia, according to an August 20, 2016 article in the New York Times. We should not congratulate ourselves too much: a similar phenomenon happened with regard to many witnesses in the JFK assassination.

Good one.

This kind of news never surprises me, in connection with that part of the world. Bloodshed always has been, and always will be part of 'culture' over there.

Of course, (in the same way, here in the west) you will always see savagery on Black Friday as shoppers --our best friends and neighbors--trample over us racing for consumer goods.

P.S. I spotted this recent headline in a New York newspaper: 'CHINESE SPY INSIDE FBI'

So much for the ingratiating, polite homilies always found sprinkled throughout our televised newsmedia.

By the way, I've long been fascinated by socialism and communism in Latin America. Does anyone else have any experience with this topic?

For discussions in other topics of this group regarding the writings of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley on totalitarianism, type "Orwell" or "Huxley" in the search box in the upper right of this webpage.

Feliks wrote: "By the way, I've long been fascinated by socialism and communism in Latin America. Does anyone else have any experience with this topic?"

From what I understand, left-wing politics in Latin America are infused, to a large degree, with a brand of liberation theology that grow out of Catholic social justice traditions. There's as much Catholic dogma as Marx and Engels in Latin American politics.

Part of the response to socialism/communism was the right crackdown, particularly in Chile, that was fueled by the neoliberal theory of Hayek, who advised Pinochet. This is a rare case of a theorist having direct influence on a government.

Thanks for this, Mark. I think the influence of the Catholic Church was very important. When I was in Southern Mexico during the seventies, it was the priests and nuns that were doing development work. And thanks for pointing out the (pernicious) influence of Hayek on Pinochet. It could well be said that his influence is responsible for most of the excesses of the right wing in both the US and Britain as well since the 80s. And he thought of himself as a liberal!

It is certainly ironic that such "libertarians" as Hayek seemed to support such dictators as Pinochet. I haven't read how they attempted to justify such support. There is a right-wing meme that economic freedom will lead to political freedom. That is a dubious claim, as perhaps evidenced by this example.

Yesterday's column by George Will explores parallels between Putin's Russia and Orwell's 1984. Although I usually disagree with Will, I think he is on the right track here.

By the way, Hayek was considered something of a heretic by Ayn Rand and others on the Right. Among other things, he supported national health insurance. He was somewhat more pragmatic than the ideological purists. Again, I don't know how he tried to justify advising Pinochet. Perhaps he naively thought he could change him. His writings do not (as far as I have read in them) indicate any sympathy for fascism. But Randal is correct that conservative-libertarian economic ideology has done much damage in the US, the UK, and elsewhere, the 2008 crash and its aftermath being just the most obvious example.

Don't get me started on Rand. Rand's "philosophy" is babbling, incoherent nonsense. Nozick wrote an article about her system of thought that just filets it. I can respect libertarian thought. There are some really smart libertarians doing really interesting work; Nozick was brilliant (if flawed, though pathbreaking), and Simmons, Schmidtz, Simmons, and Gaus are some of the best political philosophers working today. There are even left-libertarians like Mike Otsuka, whose work is fantastic. Gerry Cohen thought there was only a hair of difference between Marxists and libertarians.

Mark wrote: "Don't get me started on Rand. Rand's "philosophy" is babbling, incoherent nonsense. Nozick wrote an article about her system of thought that just filets it. I can respect libertarian thought. There..."

Well, although I disagree with Rand on most issues, I don't think her arguments are "babbling, incoherent nonsense." I have read all of her works, some of them multiple times (not recently--back in the 1970s and early 1980s). She thought very logically, and she often said that she had a closed logical system: one had to accept all of it and not just parts of it. Fanatical, yes, but her main problem was with her premises. I just don't accept them, at least not in the sense she understood them. If one accepted her premises, in the way she understood her premises, the rest seemed to follow as a matter of deductive logic. She greatly admired Aristotle's works on logic and thought she was following them. I'm sure Aristotle would have demurred.

There is Rand, and then there is the popular perception (both by her epigones and by her enemies) of Rand. There's a big difference between what Rand actually wrote and what people think she wrote. Again, however, I hold no brief for her or her philosophy. That said, one does sometime find a deep insight in her writings that is not, or not often, found elsewhere.

As I have indicated in other posts in this group, I think that Rand was emotionally and intellectually scarred by her experiences growing up in Stalinist Russia. Although I don't subscribe to the notion that we are all products of our time and place, it is clear, by her own admission, that these experiences had a profound effect on her political philosophy. She went to the opposite extreme. Or not quite the opposite extreme, which would have been Rothbard's anarchocapitalism. She excommunicated Rothbard from her inner circle (ironically known as "the Collective"). Rand herself preached the religion of extremely limited government: defense, police, and legal protection of contracts, if I recall correctly.

Addendum to my preceding post:

My recollection of Rand's concept of limited government at the end of the preceding post was not entirely accurate. Considering that it's been more than thirty years since I read her writings, my memory wasn't too far off. However, this is what she actually wrote:

"The proper functions of a government fall into three broad categories, all of them involving the issues of physical force and the protection of man's rights: the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws.

"These three categories involve many corollary and derivative issues—and their implementation in practice, in the form of specific legislation, is enormously complex. It belongs to the field of a specific science: the philosophy of law. Many errors and many disagreements are possible in the field of implementation, but what is essential here is the principle to be implemented: the principle that the purpose of law and of government is the protection of individual rights."

Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government" (1963), in Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism (New York: Signet, 1964), 112 (italics in the original).

Note that Rand's definition of a proper government implies isolationism (government should only defend against foreign invaders, not become involved in international wars; thus, Rand opposed U.S. involvement in World War II). She states that "the purpose of law and of government is the protection of individual rights." Although this is laudable as far as it goes, I would argue that this is not the only legitimate purpose of government. Here we get into a core issue. Rand and the libertarians would argue that as soon as government becomes involved in social and economic programs, it necessarily begins violating some people's individual rights. I disagree both with Rand's limitation of government in foreign policy and with Rand's limitation of government in domestic policy, but these issues are complicated and difficult. I have given some of my thoughts about these matters in my review of Rand's book For the New Intellectual.

Wonderfully nuanced description of Randian thinking. I think Alan is correct in his location of the origins of Rand's philosophy. Its not jus the right that takes things out of context. While not an admirer of her fiction (Atlas Shrugged is an almost unbearable read for anyone over the age of 40), she does commit to a strong and powerful ideology of capitalism. Her followers tool it to the limits and ended up in a dead end.
With respect to Hayek and Pinochet, all I might add is that there is a difference between "liberal" and "libertarian". Hayek was a liberal thinker in that forgotten 19th c, definition of the term. While Pinochet, with the aid of the CIA , was a murderous scoundrel and perhaps a war criminal, you can't argue with the economic facts. Chile in the 30 years after 1973 outperformed all other South American economies lifting many out of poverty and providing the proof that prosperity was possible in Latin America. I know its not a popular opinion, but unlike Trump, facts are important.

Charles wrote: "you can't argue with the economic facts. Chile in the 30 years after 1973 outperformed all other South American economies lifting many out of poverty and providing the proof that prosperity was possible in Latin America. I know its not a popular opinion, but unlike Trump, facts are important. ..."

Charles,

I am certainly no expert on the facts here, but a quick Google search came up with a long list of counterfactuals to your reference to the "economic facts" of Pinochet's Chile.

One of my favorite alternative stories is from Greg Pallast, a left wing journalist (author of Armed Madhouse about the Bush Jr. years), entitled "Tinker Bell, Pinochet and The Fairy Tale Miracle of Chile. " The reference to Greg's page on this came from a web page on Libertarian Economic Experiments from a website devoted to "Critiques of Libertarianism". There are other articles that contradict the claims of the Heritage Foundation of the libertarian basis for Chile's "economic miracle."

Pinochet was in power in Chile from 1973 to 1990, 17 years. So 13 of the years in your 30 year period were after he left office in disgrace. Palast notes that a good part of the economic miracle actually came from the re-nationalization of the copper industry, which provided “30% to 70% of the nation's export earnings.” This re-nationalization occurred after the libertarian revolution of the “Chicago Boys” was in tatters.

Some quotes from the Wikipedia article on the “Miracle of Chile”:

1) “there was little net economic growth from 1975 to 1982 (during the so-called ‘pure Monetarist experiment’)”
2) “After the catastrophic banking crisis of 1982 the state controlled more of the economy than it had under the previous so-called "socialist" regime”
3) “Chile has the widest inequality gap of any nation in the OECD”

Facts are important, but also subject to manipulation. One could argue what you suggest, but it might well be that it was not the libertarian policies of the “Chicago Boys” that resulted in Chile’s rebound (if it was so). We shouldn’t believe everything we hear from the Heritage Foundation (or Greg Palast, for that matter!)

Randal

Randal wrote: "Charles wrote: "you can't argue with the economic facts. Chile in the 30 years after 1973 outperformed all other South American economies lifting many out of poverty and providing the proof that pr..."

Additionally, does anyone have any hard facts about the numbers of political executions (formal and informal), disappearances, and so forth under Pinochet's regime? I haven't researched this, but it is my understanding that he operated what amounted to a fascist police state. Hardly a libertarian paradise!

Or perhaps I am misguided in rejecting the proposition that the Almighty Dollar "trumps" everything.

Alan wrote: "does anyone have any hard facts about the numbers of political executions (formal and informal), disappearances, and so forth under Pinochet's regime?..."

Alan,

A National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation (Comisión Nacional de Verdad y Reconciliación or the “Rettig Commission”) report included the following conclusions:

1) The commission’s final report documented 3,428 cases of disappearance, killing, torture and kidnapping, including short accounts of nearly all victims whose stories it heard.

2) Most of the forced disappearances committed by the government took place between 1974 and August 1977 as a planned and coordinated strategy of the government.

3) The National Intelligence Directorate (DINA) was responsible for a significant amount of political repression during this period.

The facts seem to indicate that, not only did the "economic miracle" fail, but a proud nation was brutalized.

Randal

Randal wrote: "Alan wrote: "does anyone have any hard facts about the numbers of political executions (formal and informal), disappearances, and so forth under Pinochet's regime?..."

Alan,

A National Commission..."

Thanks, Randal. Case closed.

This is not the group to debate macroeconomic policy and history in Latin America. The political conclusion thus defined is one i had stated in my post and one I have complete agreement with. The facts of macroeconomic policy and performance are clear enough.
While a skeptic of an over reliance on Chicago style prescriptions for anyone, I can make an case for the special disaster that has been Latin America.
Perhaps more in keeping with the focus of this groups discussion and interests is ethical arguement for policy changes that are required or desired in nation states facing disaster or ruin. I do include these United States in this conversation. It seems that it always comes down to a question of leadership and courage to face the onslaught of unpopularity. The Greeks did not manage this minefield very well as have very few democratic governments since then.
So, does the potential benefit to the many balance out the short term immediate cost to a few? Do we here in this country cut back now on something to ensure the medical and income security of the many years down the line? Is it ethical for a democratic government not to make hard decisions knowing full well the consequences of their inaction?
I have my opinions, stringy held on the subject , and if the case can be reopened in this area I would welcome commentary.