Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
2011 is 1848 Redux. But Worse
“Gentlemen, I warn you. Though the violence is not yet upon us, we are sleeping on a volcano.”
~ Alexis de Tocqueville, addressing the French parliament, January, 1848
In 1848, a series of revolutions convulsed Europe. From Berlin to Budapest, Venice to Vienna, Paris to Prague, people rose up and overthrew the authoritarian monarchies that Metternich had installed in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars. It was these revolutions that prompted Karl Marx’s opening words of The Communist Manifesto: “A specter is haunting Europe. It is the specter of communism.”
Of course, Marx was wrong. The specter of rebellion was more one of nationalism, and to a lesser extent, liberalism. More importantly, all the revolutions ultimately failed. They were all defeated by monarchical forces which mounted counter-revolutions and routed the insurrectionists. Though many governments made token concessions to the rebels, all maintained, and in some cases strengthened, their authoritarian rule until finally, decades later, they could no longer suppress the impetus for change.
This is the important lesson that history has for the rebels of 2011. Euphoria is not victory. The removal of symbols is not the change of regimes. Whether in Athens or Cairo, Bahrain or even Wisconsin, the revolutions will not be won in the streets. They will not be won early. They will be resisted fiercely, cleverly, tenaciously, and with all the resources that the assaulted powers can muster, including the most important resource of all: time.
If the revolutions of 2011 are to succeed — and it’s a big if in every case — several things need to occur. The grievances must be extended beyond the core of protesters and taken up by their larger populations. The protesters must seize control of not just city squares and capitol buildings, but the institutions of power themselves. And the protests must be sustained, for years if necessary, until fundamental change is secured. These will be extremely high hurdles to clear but unless they are, the revolutions will ultimately fail.
The revolutions of 1848 had a variety of different characters, just as do those of 2011. In Paris they were about the ascendant bourgeoisie wanting access to the levers of state power. In Berlin, they reflected a hyper-intellectual liberalism that sought to unify the disparate German states under the aegis of a constitutional republic. In Budapest and Vienna, they were impelled by nationalist forces seeking autonomy from the Austrian empire of the Hapsburgs.
In every case, a small group of committed protesters took to the streets and overwhelmed local security forces. And their immediate impacts were dramatic. In Paris, Louis Philippe of the Bourbon family abdicated. In Berlin, Frederick William III of the Hohenzollern dynasty acceded to a new constitution. In Vienna, the Hapsburg royal family actually left the city and moved to Innsbruck. The effect was electric. But like electricity, it was evanescent.
In each case, the forces of reaction took stock of the situation, assessed theirs and the rebels’ resources, and mounted carefully conceived, methodically executed counter-revolutions. Two factors proved critical in reversing the gains of the revolutions. First, there were stark class divisions among the revolutionaries which the reactionaries easily exploited. And second, in none of the revolts had the revolutionaries taken control of the instruments of power. These factors proved decisive in the monarchs regaining control of their states.
For example, the class divisions in Paris were notorious. It was the urban workers (Marx’s proletariat) who provided the muscle by manning the barricades. But once the bourgeoisie — the merchants, the professionals, the civil servants — won their concessions, they abandoned the workers and sided with the new government. Similarly, in Berlin, liberal intellectuals were played off against agrarian peasants and urban artisans. In Austria, once the peasants were released from forced farm work they quit the cause, hanging their former compatriots — the students and the nationalists — out to dry. The inability of the people to unite around a singular cause allowed the governments to play them off against each other. It was fatal to the revolutionaries’ cause.
In the use of force, the monarchs were equally effective. In Paris, the army restored order after the riotous “June Days.” More than 20,000 revolutionaries were killed, jailed, or sent to exile in Algeria. In Berlin, the state let the liberals debate until their fervor was spent. Then they used the army to restore order. A decade later, Bismarck would famously comment, “The issues of the day will not be decided by speeches and debate. 1848 showed us that. They will be settled by iron and blood.” Bismarck would come to be known as the “Iron Chancellor.”
In Vienna, which faced the most extensive revolts, the collapse of the revolutions in France and Prussia gave the rulers heart. The Hapsburg rulers had the army shell its own capital cities until the insurrectionists surrendered. Prague, Vienna, and Budapest were ruthlessly bombed and besieged by both the Austrian, and, in the case of Hungary, the Russian armies. In every case, the revolutions were reversed and the empire returned to power.
What can we learn from this not-so-ancient history that might improve the chances of success for the revolutions of 2011?
The first thing is that nobody should have any illusions that the existing orders are going to go quietly into the night. They are too deeply entrenched, too convinced of their entitlement to power, have too many resources at their disposal, and have too much to lose by easy capitulation. They will use every trick in the book to undermine the cohesion, commitment, and resilience of the protesters.
In Jordan and Bahrain, for example, the governments have nakedly moved to buy off the protesters. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the extremely authoritarian, honestly, medieval, government announced mass disbursements to all citizens amounting to thousands of dollars per person.
Each of these countries are critical to U.S. strategy in the Middle East. Jordan is critical to U.S. support for Israel. Jordan supported Jews against Palestinians in the war of 1948 that made Israel a state. Bahrain hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet which keeps control of the Persian Gulf. And Saudi Arabia sits atop 25% of the world’s known oil reserves. We may assume each has a blank check on U.S. resources to help defeat their peoples’ revolutions.
In each of these states, the revolutionaries, though righteous and adamant, have no experience in the exercise of state power, or of any institutional power for that matter. This proved fateful for all of the revolutions of 1848. No one thought enough to seize control of the army, which was then used against them. This is conspicuous in the upheaval in Egypt: that the army has not been converted to the cause of the revolutionaries.
Indeed, Egypt is almost a case study in how all of the tools of reaction will be used to thwart the revolution. It is both the most populous state in the Arab world, and the first state to formally make peace with Israel: the Camp David accords of 1979. While the revolutionaries occupied Tahrir square, Obama played a cagey game of who the U.S. was supporting. When it became clear Mubarak was no longer viable, the U.S. readily threw him under the bus, an artful act of strategic jui jitsu.
Ballasting Mubarak removed the symbolic locus of Egyptian rage, though it did nothing to change the underlying levers of power. His immediate successor, Suleiman, was simply Mubarak with less hair, the anointed choice of Israeli intelligence. All of the resources of U.S. intelligence and military remain supporting a regime that is deeply committed to serving U.S. and Israeli interests, and that is, ahem, pharaohically rewarded for doing so .
Finally, there is Madison. Is there a lesson from 1848 there?
The conflict in Madison is really a final-stage battle by the rich to undermine unions that has been underway since Ronald Reagan moved to destroy the air traffic controller’s union in 1981. And even that battle was just a small skirmish in a still-larger war whose goal is to shift power, wealth, and income from working and middle class people to the very wealthy. It’s worked, beyond anyone’s imagining.
Since 1979, the top 1% of income earners have gained $740,000 in real annual income. Each. The lowest 80% of income earners have lost income. The U.S. actually has greater income inequality today than does Egypt! NAFTA, enacted under Bill Clinton, shipped jobs and entire industries to Mexico, undercutting the security of American workers. And Bush added China to the list of countries favored to receive U.S. jobs. The period from 2000 to 2010 is the only decade in American history in which there were no net new jobs added to the U.S. economy. The result has been a significant growth in poverty, a dramatic write-down in middle class wealth, and growing economic insecurity.
So, the policies of the rich to undermine everyone else, carried out through their puppets in both parties, have been extraordinarily successful. They have been multi-faceted, broad-based, bi- partisan, and sustained. The rich will use every tool in their seasoned arsenal, every suck-up in their rolodex of sycophantic whores, to continue their self-enrichment.
The most powerful tool they will use is the class resentment that Reagan was so deft at manipulating. This proved amazingly effective in 1848. When standards of living are falling, it is easy to foment discord among people by finding some who are not sinking as fast as everyone else and telling the rest that their misfortune is caused by those who have not yet been drug down. This is the essence of the Republican strategy against public sector unions: try to make it look like they are the cause of everyone else’s misfortune. Sadly, it’s working.
The antidote is class solidarity through education. People need to understand that the long-term decline in their standards of living is not an accident. It is precisely the goal of the game in which they are the scripted losers. They need to know that pursuit of that goal is what Republican politicians are sired and hired for. The Koch brothers don’t underwrite the slimy likes of Scott Walker because of his compassion or vision or executive ability. They hire him to break legs and take no prisoners, to gut union protections and destroy the funding base of democratic opposition.
People need to know that the “Golden Age” of growth, prosperity, and economic well-being in this country was precisely that age, from the 1950s and 1960s, when unions were strong and the middle class was vibrant. They need to know that the decline in living standards and economic security since that time have come hand-in-hand with the decline in unions and the protections they afforded jobs and incomes.
People need to understand that if they break ranks, if they turn on each other as will be so tempting, they will be picked off one by one and used as examples to intimidate everybody left. They will be pitted against each other and, indeed, against workers in China making $.57 an hour. They will be fired at will for the least temerity and blackballed for life. There will be no bottom to the downward spiral of poverty, misery, destitution, and despair.
There will be no institution in America left to stand up to the rapacious predations of the big corporations. Certainly it will not be the government, which has become little more than a tool in the hands of the corporations to break the backs and the will of the people. It has been the federal government that has refused to enforce laws protecting union elections. It has been the federal government that has given tax breaks to big corporations so they can more profitably ship jobs overseas while recycling their swelling profits back into Republican election coffers.
It is the federal government that will not go after Caribbean tax havens for billionaires but will go after the home mortgage deduction for working class families. It will not reverse the Bush tax cuts that favor the same billionaires but will reverse its commitment to the most successful social program of the last seven decades: Social Security.
Finally, people need to understand that this is a long term game. The rich have been at it since Roosevelt decried the “economic royalists” that had caused the Great Depression, and passed legislation protecting workers and unions. They have bought countless politicians at all levels of government, all of them only too happy to sell out their countrymen in exchange for a well-laundered campaign contribution. The rich own the media who relentlessly re-cycle their ideologically biased narratives about hating the government, lauding free markets, and blaming the people for their own plights. They have installed the best judiciary that money can buy — witness the Citizens United decision that allows corporations to pour unlimited amounts into election campaigns.
This ring of power, from corporations to the government to the media to the judiciary, is now closing in for the final kill against the working people of the country. Its goal is the re-installation of the autocratic monarchies that dominated Europe in the nineteenth century. It demands no less than the complete subjugation of workers and the surrendering of their rights. It also aims at complete expropriation of the wealth and the independence that they have spent generations amassing. The handing over of trillions of dollars to the banks in the duress of the collapse of 2008 is only a harbinger of things to come.
The revolutions of 1848 were crushed by the authoritarian monarchs of their day. But the forces that had propelled those revolutions — the Industrial Revolution and the longing of people for national autonomy — would eventually secure their ends. Monarchies would retreat from the world of power and people would gain economic prosperity and political freedom. It is likely that similarly such powerful forces of transformation are at work today. Unfortunately, they do not portend the same optimistic ending.
Today, the powerful forces rocking the world are the exhaustion of oil and the imminent end of industrial civilization, the rise of China to challenge the U.S. for global supremacy, and the cataclysmic onset of global climate change. Any one of these will upset the architecture of global power as nothing before has ever done. This is why it is so important that the present revolutions be resolved in favor of empowerment and choice. Without such resolution, adaptation to the new world will be imposed by force, and in the interests of those already most enriched. It will not be pretty.
As in 1848, whether the revolutions succeed depends on whether people become aware, aroused, and angry, and whether they can sustain their indignation for longer than the next commercial, the next season of re-runs, the next election cycle. It will certainly require years, probably decades, maybe generations, to reclaim the country and the rights people assume to be their inheritance. But without it there is only the degradation of destitution and the servility of serfdom, a humiliating patrimony to hand down to their children. We escaped from that once. Let us hope we don’t return to it again.


69 Comments so far
Show AllI'm sorry.
Robert Freeman steps up to the plate.
He stretches. He twists. He taps the plate. He takes some practice swings.
He carefully sets his feet in a good stance.
He hunkers down.
He looks at the field before him.
He's ready.
He sees the ball coming and he
hopes?
I think he is on the right track. Now all he - and all of us - needs to do is go here
http://ampedstatus.com/the-road-to-world-war-iii-the-global-banking-cartel-has-one-card-left-to-play/
where David DeGraw has connected the dots and provided the Big Picture.
Kitaj,
Excellent dot connecting by David DeGraw. Let's hope these game theory maniacs in the pentagon and the IMF have outsmarted themselves. These elite goons love to pretend they can corral us into a corner and destroy us one by one. They better bring a sandwich. It's not going to be as easy as the demonic wiz kids from the elite think. I personally think the elite cannot handle this worldwide tsunami of rage because it's a raised consciousness phenomenum, not simply a lack of food, shelter, education and freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlNtvoTFQJU
You raise a very good point about consciousness raising.
I think the elite - especially the bankers - have profoundly miscalculated and are about to find out that there is not a place anywhere on this planet where they can hide.
I was thinking the same thing. It is like these unlawful owner/rulers of the world have been preying upon humanity throughout the "long night" of our travail, and, like vampires, it is THEY who will now be set upon by the "sunrise" just appearing on the horizon. Things are different this time. Although there is nothing new under the sun, some things move in VERY LONG cycles. A very long cycle is completing/coming 'round again.
"People need to know that the “Golden Age” of growth, prosperity, and economic well-being in this country was precisely that age, from the 1950s and 1960s, when unions were strong and the middle class was vibrant. They need to know that the decline in living standards and economic security since that time have come hand-in-hand with the decline in unions and the protections they afforded jobs and incomes."
Enough of the context dropping! Lets see what was happening in the run-up to the 50's - Hmmm... Oh, that's right, little thing called World War II, in which every manufacturing base but 1 was completely destroyed. Gee, you think the workers in that one just might do pretty darned well, no matter WHAT OTHER FACTORS were present?? You think that when the other countries repaired themselves and removed that singular advantage, that just maybe those fortunate workers on the winning side would no longer be doing so well?
And that's exactly what happened - even the destructive power of the unions wasn't enough to remove that advantage the United States had.
Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, NOT a newspaper!
You are spreading reactionary lies about unions.
Of course WWII put the US at the head of the world economy. as a result the country was very wealthy. Due to the unions and the threat of communism, the workers gained a share of the new wealth.
The economic rise of the defeated powers challenged US economic hegemony, but the re-emergence of income and wealth strategy occurred in the 80's as a result of Reaganism and union busting, offshoring, and militariztion and financializtion of the economy. All of these were policies that were initiated by the econmic elites, not the people or their unions.
If it were merely the re-emergence of econmic competitors, than all boats would have sunk equally. Instead the share of the wealth going to the masses shrank while the rich got ever richer. Your reactionary rendition of history does not account for the staggerring inequality that emerged, and is therefore basically invalid.
Atlas Shrugged is not a warning or a newspaper. It is a demented book whose pages are fit solely for use as a toilet paper
Excellent post, Joe Hill.
Ayn Rand's psuedo-intellectualism conntinues to add a veneer of legitimacy to the Leo Straus school of right wing political philosophy, justifying greed and megalomania as civic virtues. Atlas Shrugged was neither a warning nor a newspaper. It remains what it always was: a useful fairy tale masquerading as serious political thought.
Bill from Saginaw
I agree. It seems that not even an economic two by four can get some people to see things properly. Selfish people will never advocate for humane behavior among humans (or any other animal, for that matter).
Thank you, "dreamjoehill", for setting the historical record straight.
.
Hmm. Yes I remember "Atlas Shrugged" and the "Fountainhead" two novels by Ayn Rand.
The important thing to know about Ayn Rand is that the influence of her ideas has had disastrous consequences for almost everyone living on the planet today through her relationship with Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke’s predecessor as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
More about that below.
I confess to having read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" in their entirety including the incredibly boring 50 some page speech by the hero John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged".
Jeesh, Come to think of it I recently saw someone sporting a John Galt bumper sticker.
Throughout these two novels Ayn Rand practiced a more “subtle” version (than simple in your face ad hominem attack) of the "argument from intimidation" that she categorically condemned in an essay in "The Virtue Of Selfishness".
Ayn Rand was, of course, among other things, a hypocrite.
I saw Ayn Rand speak at a Northeastern University Ford Hall Forum in the early 1980s before she died.
She was the most intense and inflexible ideologue I have ever known. Perhaps some might consider that a virtue. Unlike politicians, a species of human being that Rand held in utter contempt, Ayn Rand minced no words.
I have heard that there was a time when some of the followers of Rand’s Objectivist philosophy wore capes like the ones worn by Any Rand herself. Objectivisim was and I guess still is a cult philosophy.
Rand was born to a Jewish bourgeois family living in Saint Petersburg in Czarist Russia. The family suffered terribly because of the revolution.
Perhaps that explains in part, although without also constituting an excuse, why Ayn Rand was such an incredibly arrogant and hateful bigot.
Her performance at the Ford Hall forum certainly confirmed that. Not that I needed confirmation. But there was something fascinating about seeing someone like Rand in person, and of course the people in the audience as well.
In the early 1950s, according to Wikipedia, Alan Greenspan, future Chairman of the Federal Reserve, became an associate of Ayn Rand, a relationship that would last until her death in 1982. Ayn Rand stood beside Greenspan at his 1974 swearing-in as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.
During the 1950s, again according to Wikipedia, Greenspan was one of the members of Ayn Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written.
In a congressional hearing on October 23, 2008 Greenspan admitted that his free-market ideology shunning certain regulations was flawed. However, when asked about free markets and the ideas of Ayn Rand in an interview on April 4, 2010, Greenspan clarified his stance on laissez faire capitalism and asserted that in a democratic society there could be no better alternative. He stated that the errors that were made stemmed not from the principle, but the application of competitive markets in "assuming what the nature of risks would be."
Well, of course. Spoken like a true believer, and b.s. artist.
As “agelbert” said, “It seems that not even an economic two by four can get some people to see things properly.”
Maybe even Ayn Rand would have held Greenspan in contempt. Rand would have found a "better" less "compromising" answer, and delivered it both with indignation and utter contempt for anyone with the audacity and stupidity to ask.
Actually, I don’t think that the pages of either “Atlas Shrugged” or “The Fountainhead”, at least not the paperback versions, would make good toilet paper unless a person were desperate, of course.
But they do provide examples of psychologically manipulative political indoctrination carried out through the literary form of the novel.
Maybe unwittingly “mcsandberg1” is right about something.
Both “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead” are a warning, a warning about the dangers of propaganda and the importance of the “battle of ideas.”
A beautiful example of the logical fallacy of poisoning the well (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html). None of the above disproves a single thing about the philosophy of objectivism. There is not a single statement in the long screed that disputes anything in Atlas Shrugged or any of the other great classical works of liberty, such as The Road To Serfdom, Human Action, Free To Choose and so on.
I suggest that you read Franciso d' Anconia's "Money Speech" in its entirety and ask yourself "Why am I attacking Freedom?" It might even let you figure out why your side has completely lost the battle of ideas. http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/economics/money/1826-francisco-s-money-speech.html
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made--before it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced."
Well, I am not normally accused of writing screeds. But in this case I consider the accusation a compliment. However, you should know if I wasn’t interested in the subject I wouldn’t respond to your comments.
You may have heard of Henry Hazlitt, author of “Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics” This book used to be a favorite of Libertarians with a capital “L” and is available for free on the web (www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf). As I expect you know many Libertarians are also fans of Ayn Rand.
I admit that I disagree with much of what Henry Hazlitt says. However, his basic lesson, his “economics in one lesson” is a valuable economics lesson, although not the only economics lesson, appropriate to the discussion of your comments. I will employ two economic lessons in response to your comments.
The First Economics Lesson (Hazlitt):
Quoted just below is Henry Hazlitt’s lesson (See page 17 of the pdf file, which is page 5 of that particular edition of “Economics in One Lesson”.)
“From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”
Now, I think I lot of people regardless of their ideological beliefs would agree with this lesson, if not Hazlitt’s claim that the whole of economics can be reduced to it. In fact “agelbert”, you remember “agelbert”, would probably point out that even after getting hit with an “economic two by four” some people like Alan Greenspan and perhaps yourself still can’t see things properly, and probably should be condemned to spending the rest of their life contemplating this lesson somewhere where they can do others no harm, certainly not in a position of power like chairman of the Federal Reserve. Hang on to that word “power” for a moment. We will see that word again in our second lesson.
The value of money, the price of money and of goods and services, is determined in the most immediate sense in a market economy by the market.
But as Hazlitt has pointed out any act or policy (and I will focus here on policy and acts both large and small) has both immediate and longer term effects with consequences not just for one group but for all groups and individuals I might add. Of course, in reality the smaller the act the more likely its effects will dissipate rapidly.
So, we find that people who have Asperger’s Syndrome are able to compete more successfully in the marketplace with people that they themselves might describe as neuro-typicals as the computer revolution transforms society and their particular talents become more valuable. At some point epidemiologists and other people note that there is a higher than normal incidence of Asperger’s Syndrome in places like Silicon Valley.
What this very short story illustrates is that the money a person earns and the wealth a person accrues is dependent upon the whole society, its level of technological development, the individual needs of its citizens, the crises it faces like peak oil and global warming. Put another way both the monetary value in any given moment and the intrinsic value of the particular genius common to many people who have Asperger’s Syndrome, the monetary value or the intrinsic value of your own particular talents such as they are, are dependent upon the whole society, and upon the discoveries, inventions, the infrastructure and wealth generation of past generations.
Wealth generation then is the product of the interrelated individual efforts of everyone in society including our ancestors.
What does this mean?
First, that policies which ignore this fact - which focus only on the immediate, and fail to protect society and the economy from the dangerous and destructive actions of powerful (oops, there is a version of the word “power” again) individuals or organizations such as large corporations - risk destroying wealth and the ability of individual people to earn a living.
Think Alan Greenspan and as well as other devotees of Objectivism and Libertarianism with a capital "L", and devotees of the Chicago or Austrian schools of economics. It was the capture of government by powerful corporations, and the corporate and government policies pursued at the behest of these corporations that caused the mortgage crisis, the financial meltdown, and the Great Recession from which we still suffer. Surely, you do not believe that relatively powerless organizations like ACORN or relatively ineffective laws like the Community Reinvestment Act are responsible for all the economic destruction. Furthermore, it was the policies of a government essentially controlled by large corporations, particularly “Wall Street”, that rewarded these same corporations “who” had privatized their gains and socialized their losses thereby transferring enormous amounts of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.
Hey, it’s great “work” if you can get it! Right?
Second, if the money we earn in the labor marketplace is dependent not only upon our own talents and efforts but also upon the market in its entirety with all that means as just discussed above, then perhaps beholden as we all are to everyone else in society for everything we have earned it is fitting that society requires that we give something back from the income we have “earned” through our talents and efforts to all the people through their democratic government to use for such purposes as they deem fit: for example maintaining the rule of (just) laws, transportation infrastructure, public schools, even income redistribution, whatever.
This argument based on Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson” is actually my version of an argument made by conservative columnist and pundit George Will in a column he wrote (I think in the early 1980s or late 1970s) arguing against the Libertarian idea that taxes are theft. Well yeah, I admit that sometimes they are, but that brings us to the Second Economic Lesson.
To Be Continued In Next Post.
Continued From Previous Post.
Second Economics Lesson:
All economic markets exist within and interact with one or more power structures which include dimensions of power with elements which are not primarily economic.
This is just as true of the Bazaar in ancient Baghdad, smuggling across the front lines of opposing armies, the former Soviet Union, Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States, Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" minarchist fantasies about private security firms, or the mythical economy of Galt’s Gulch found only in “Atlas Shrugged.”
Get use to it!
One more thing, perhaps you haven’t noticed but muscles have been the primary means of creating wealth and getting money for thousands of years. That is why the use of weapons and the enslavement of people, although immoral and unjust, was such an important part of acquiring wealth and power in the past and is still a means of acquiring wealth today.
Powerful people in control of government and sometimes of religion have enslaved countless people for thousands of years and taxed peasants for government services of dubious immediate or even long term value to the peasants.
So, take another look at that screed you posted, an excerpt from Franciso d' Anconia's "Money Speech"
Notice that the author conflates the meaning of the words “money” and “wealth”, which while related in some ways definitely do not mean exactly the same thing.
Yes, money has throughout the ages often been made by the strong at the expense of the weak, both in brutally simple and in incredibly complex ways. And it is still happening today.
I suggest we try genuine democracy to control the abuse of power, since we have yet to establish a genuine democracy in the United States or anywhere else for that matter, and give that a try.
Regards
I'll grant you that money and wealth CAN be distinguished http://mises.org/daily/4507, but its not commonly done.
Ayn Rand's point, that was money cannot be MADE (or as you might prefer it - wealth cannot be CREATED) by force. It can ONLY be TAKEN by force. Poverty is the normal condition of mankind. It was not until the realization that money can be made that the first wealthy societies arose.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/what-causes-wealth/
"Writing nearly one century after Smith, Herbert Spencer also recognized the source of wealth. In Man vs. the State he observed:
"It is not to the State that we owe the multitudinous useful inventions from the spade to the telephone; it is not the State which made possible extended navigation by a developed astronomy; it was not the State which made the discoveries in physics, chemistry, and the rest, which guide modern manufacturers; it was not the State which devised the machinery for producing fabrics of every kind, for transferring men and things from place to place, and for ministering in a thousand ways to our comforts. The worldwide transactions conducted in mer chants’ offices, the rush of traffic filling our streets, the retail distributing system which brings everything within easy reach and delivers the necessaries of life daily at our doors, are not of governmental origin. All these are results of the spontaneous activities of citizens, separate or grouped."
The market process is the source of new wealth. It does not redistribute wealth to the powerful at the expense of others, such as in a collectivized economy; rather, it enables new goods and services to come into the marketplace. A free market system is a positive sum system. Remarkably, the standard of living can rise, even though the population is increasing, because the total amount of wealth is not fixed."
As for genuine democracy - an unlimited democracy is just 2 lions and a lamb voting on what's for lunch. Therefor you must have a limited democracy, which the founders recognized when they build a republic.
mcsandberg1 wrote:
I'll grant you that money and wealth CAN be distinguished http://mises.org/daily/4507, but its not commonly done.
My reply:
This is a very basic and important distinction, particularly in a full blown market economy. A person cannot really understand economics without making this distinction. In fact Hazlitt should include this as another separate but important lesson in his book.
I am glad to hear Ludwig von Mises does make this distinction. I never got around to reading my copy of his master work “Human Action: A Treatise on Economics”. After all it’s rather long and my copy is currently stashed in a barn in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom, while I am for the moment at least now living in Florida.
Mcsandberg1 wrote:
“Ayn Rand's point, that was money cannot be MADE (or as you might prefer it - wealth cannot be CREATED) by force. It can ONLY be TAKEN by force.”
My reply:
I have no argument here regarding money or wealth, providing that by “made” we actually mean “earned” and not simply “manufactured,” I expect “earned” is the meaning that Ayn Rand intended. Of course, wealth can be manufactured with the aid of forced labor and violence.
Ayn Rand wasn’t wrong about everything you know. Her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” was a powerful antidote to some toxic forms of selflessness and altruism promoted by certain variants of Christianity. But as with any medicine the cure should not be of greater toxicity than, or even of equal toxicity to, the toxicity of the disease. In my opinion the cure administered by Ayn Rand was more toxic than the disease, and unnecessarily so.
Back to the point however, the “money” earned when you or I sell goods or services, the price of which is determined by the market and is received by you or I in its entirety in the form of money, is actually earned in part by other members of our society past and present, possibly even by members of other societies past and present, because their contributions which we build upon effect the price we are able to obtain for the use of our talent, intelligence, and labor.
These contributions are externalities with respect to the transaction we engaged in when selling goods or services. And of course the less critical these previous contributions are to the determination of the actual price of the money we receive when we sell goods or services, whether because these contributions are more distant in time or less germane to what we do, then the less of the money we receive when we sell goods or services has in fact been earned by someone else who made this contributions. Of course, the amount of money earned through these sorts of transactional externalities is impossible to determine or quantify. But the fact that these transactional externalities exist should be clear from Hazlitt’s basic lesson in his book “Economics in One Lesson: even if Henry Hazlitt himself didn’t recognize them.
This is the point I made in the earlier post using both the story about people with Asperger’s Syndrome working in the computer industry and the basic lesson found in Henry Hazlitt’s book “Economics in One Lesson.”
This particular truth is so far as I know always ignored by people working within the confines of certain economic schools of thought which I already mentioned in that same post. Unlike George Will, at least at the time he wrote the essay I cited, they fail to acknowledge that usually many people have contributed to the creation of wealth beyond those most directly involved in the wealth creation and this generally even includes people working for government.
Aside from the fact that modern governments contribute to wealth generation in a myriad of ways through their direct participation in the economy, something many people do not like, there are indirect ways that government and even private enterprise contribute to wealth creation.
Let’s consider one of the several definitions of wealth found at Merriam-Webster.Com (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealth). The one which reads as follows:
Wealth: “All material objects that have economic utility; especially : the stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one time”,
We must conclude then that even public education and advertizing can indirectly create wealth at least to the extent that they do not propagandize about human needs, but rather actually disseminate accurate and practical information about the usefulness of material objects.
Processed uranium ore is not wealth so long as and to the extent that you and hardly anyone else knows that it can be turned into electricity. And processed uranium ore is not wealth so long as and to the extent that you and hardly anyone else knows how to satisfactorily handle its toxicity, although you still might be able to make a bundle selling it. If there is no way to satisfactorily handle the toxicity of processed uranium ore, then depending upon the seriousness of this problem including the duration of that toxicity, the uranium may not be wealth at all, but instead as some wag somewhere has suggested “illth”.
To Be Continued In Next Post.
Continued From Previous Post
You have undoubtedly heard the phrase a “wealth of knowledge.” Surely, you would agree that knowledge itself can be a form of wealth, so long as it usefully benefits people. This is important as we confront the ecological crisis we face. Wealth generation critical to our survival needs to shift as much as possible away from object (resource) based wealth toward knowledge based wealth. This is one of the concerns important to addressing the problems discussed in the article under which all these comments have been posted.
Muscle power can of course contribute to the creation of wealth. I may know how to make and use a fence, but if for some reason neither I nor anyone else can make a fence, either because we are all paraplegics or there are no fence making materials available, then the only wealth that exists is the knowledge of how to make and use a fence. And that wealth awaits the opportunity to spring to action, once an opportunity arises where the wealth embodied by the fence and made possible by knowledge can in fact come into physical existence.
The words “economic utility” and “useful” (in the sense of beyond simply making a buck) are essential parts of the definition of wealth, whereas the words “objects” and “goods” are not.
And so part of what we receive when you or I sell our goods or services has usually been earned by many of the rest of the members of our society due to contributions that they make either through their own wealth creation activity or by providing the economic circumstances that make much of the creation of wealth in society possible through their role as consumers or by those who work in government who provide various government services that support the economy, such as a just and reliable legal system. Some of these contributions come in the form of public goods or services that nevertheless effect the price we receive for the goods and services that we sell.
.
Money then is just one form of wealth. But money is a form of wealth only so long as it has usefulness and of course a price that accompanies that usefulness in some marketplace. Money can be a useful object or in the case of most money a useful piece of information within a financial system and therefore a form of wealth. But as we have recently seen many forms of wealth are easily created and easily destroyed and some financial assets are in fact so toxic that they do not embody wealth at all, but rather illth.
As I explained to my then 15 year old daughter the financial crisis was a little bit like the card game I used to play with my sisters when I was a kid, known nby the not very PC name of Old Maid (read toxic asset). The object of the game was to pass off the Old Maid (read toxic asset) to another player. What made this particular version of Old Maid (read toxic asset). that is the financial crisis version, so much fun is that any of the cards in your hand depending upon what you were holding could suddenly without warning turn into an Old Maid (read toxic asset) at any time.
Perhaps you were a major player in this game. The biggest guys at the table, however, were pretty smart and had a lot of political clout and got our dear old Uncle Sam to take care of things for them. You know how the saying goes “those who make the rules don’t (really) have to play the game.”
A house owned clear and free without a mortgage is still unencumbered wealth even if its market value is zero so long as it provides a good place to live. But so long as it market value is zero it is not useful as an asset for the purposes of storing wealth for future withdrawal and use. Its liquidity as an asset is zilch.
This is of course the reason that GDP is not such a good measure of the health of an economy. The exchange of money or other financial assets for goods or services does not necessarily involve the creation of new wealth or even the exchange of existing wealth. GDP basically measures the throughput of the economy, the dollar value of transactions, but that does not necessarily involve wealth.
See the cover article in the October 1995 Atlantic Monthly titled at least on the cover “If the Economy Is Up, Why Is America Down?” with the addition cover comment “The gross domestic product (GDP) is such a crazy mismeasure of the economy that it portrays disaster as gain. A new economic barometer might transform our society” for an early discussion of this idea. Of course, very few economists listened to the advice given in this article.
Certainly, if your only means for earning a living is through buying and selling goods and services as is true for most of us then the rate of throughput in the economy, particularly the number of transactions with dollar values that fall into the range of the prices you need to charge for the goods and services you sell in order to make a profit will be critical to your survival because that gives some indication, however imperfect, where the money is likely to flow next, and whether or not you can profitably tap into the flow.
This is why people like Wendell Berry (“The Unsettling of America) have been concerned for a long time by the nearly complete commoditization of our lives through the transfer of production including the production of childcare, food production, and food preparation out of the home or homestead and into someone else’s workplace, and about the deskilling of America and the destruction of the wealth of knowledge that accompanies this development.
This brings us again around to one of the themes of the article under which all these comments are posted.
In the event of a economic collapse every survivalist probably knows intuitively that the commoditization of our lives and the deskilling of American means that life is likely to get shorter and more brutish to borrow the words of Thomas Hobbes much more quickly unless we know how to work together, and unless "We the People" and not powerful economic elites control the government.
To Be Continued In Next Post
Continued From A Previous Post
mcsandberg1 wrote:
"Writing nearly one century after Smith, Herbert Spencer also recognized the source of wealth. In Man vs. the State he observed: [etc]
My reply:
See again my previous comments articulated ad nauseum.
mcsandberg1 wrote:
The market process is the source of new wealth. It does not redistribute wealth to the powerful at the expense of others, [etc]
My reply:
Actually, the market process can be used to distribute wealth to the powerful at the expense of others. See previous comments in previous posts and in earlier posts. Also, consider engaging in extensive research into the causes of the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis of 2008 and what happened in their aftermath.
mcsandberg1 wrote:
As for genuine democracy - an unlimited democracy is just 2 lions and a lamb voting on what's for lunch. Therefor you must have a limited democracy, which the founders recognized when they build a republic.
My reply:
Is a work in process. Will probably post it tomorrow if you are interested. But I have to attend to other matters now.
Regards
Interesting essay by Robert Freeman.
Unfortunately, the revolutionary moment has passed in the US of A. The old regime was on the brink of collapse back in 2008. All of the big Wall Street investment banks were insolvent. Had the Federal Reserve been forced to stay out of their mess and the US Treasury not borrowed obscene amounts of cash from the near future .... the powers-that-be would have imploded. Of course, there would have been economic suffering for a few years - all revolutions cause suffering - but real change was possible at that moment.
As always, the Federal Reserve has been creating a new set of speculative bubbles that will collapse in due time, i.e. bonds, gold, select commodities. The next Fed created economic crisis will likely be more devastating than the last one. Another moment for revolution will emerge.
Of course the Fed could jack up interest rates and that would lead to higher unemployment and more misery. That could work for your revolution. However, almost no one but you would truly like to see this occur. Gold and commodities very often have severe upswings and collapses during times of economic uncertainty or shortages. Anyone who speculates in these markets without knowledge is simply a fool waiting to lose his money. Freeman does an excellent job of explaining what's happening and with the historical perspective.
It's actually unfortunate that 2008, the year of decision, was an election year. As a result, the Democrats were able to coopt the budding revolt with fraudulent promises of "Hope" and "Change."
Turns out, when you vote for "Hope," that's what you get, and ALL you get. So Freeman's last line is very unfortunate. We have to do a lot more than hope. We have to seize the institutions of power, and it isn't at all clear how we can do that. Perhaps Freeman, or others, could write the other half of this piece, with concrete action proposals.
Our options come down to 3 or 4, in some form:
Elections. As a Green Party activist, I normally advocate electoral approaches, IF they include breaking the 2-party mold - Freeman is at least clear that both major parties are part of the problem. But what if our elections are being stolen? We know it happens; if the Republicans can do it, so can the Dems. And the system is badly rigged even without that.
Demonstrations. Our officials have become really good at ignoring the kind of polite, legal demonstrations we usually see, even when the numbers are enormous. They were before the Iraq War, which happened anyway, and demonstrations have been very weak since that pointed demonstration of futility. Only very large-scale, illegal RESISTANCE that poses a threat to social order, as it did in the late 60's, will be effective. I think it would be met with violence, very much on the model we've seen in the Arab countries, and I'm not optimistic about the military's loyalties.
Boycott and general strike. These essentially economic actions are similar in that they strike directly at the corporations and the wealthy, and that they are difficult to suppress by violence. Somebody has to organize them, though, and those people would be vulnerable. Internet anonymity could be valuable for this, but I fear the feds have deep control of the Internet; they could either gain access or simply shut it down. "Headless" networking is the best approach. The problem with these is that they require even wider mobilization to be effective. If we can't even get people to vote for the Green Party, how will we get them to join the revolution?
The answer is that we won't. Ultimately, the attack by the rich will. But we don't see that kind of thing yet; even the "rebellion" in Madison has been pretty tame, though they are talking about a general strike.
More, please, Mr. Freeman. I'm writing your essay for you.
Elections should be at the bottom of the list of priorities. Only the corrupted 2 parties win. You can spend every day, every dollar you have trying to promote another candidate, but you're fighting a losing battle unless the area you live in is already quite left leaning.
Demonstrations are the beginning, but we need to look at them differently. We need to protest more and for bigger ideas, like those in NA and the ME. One day protests in DC don't mean anything. Of course politicians and the media ignore protests as much as they can, the point is word gets out to the general public anyway. When people hear thousands, tens of thousands and more have been protesting in Wisconsin for weeks despite the lack of coverage, it means a lot more to average Americans than protests that the media clowns hype up. Protests are also a great way to feel empowered and to meet people, even more so the longer they continue.
Boycotts can be ignored and tend to be too specific. They work in extreme cases like in South Africa. It's time to go big with our demands.
Agree with strikes, but we'll have to start finding ways to radically unionize again. There are hardly any private sector unions because the laws favor big companies, not workers. Even many state workers can't legally strike in the US. Companies will gladly hire any of the tons of desperate people looking for work right now to replace anyone who dares defy them. Ultimately our fight needs to be to overthrow the strictly hierarchical structure of companies and reorganize them horizontally with all workers having input (democracy), not simply demand more crumbs (that will be taken back from us as soon as companies get the chance).
What the People need to know is that Nature's experiment with Homo sapiens is not simply a failure - it is a disaster.
No amount of wishing this wasn't so will make any difference. There is no hiding place from this verity because the flaws are DNA based. We have evolved into irreconcilable Peoples, philosophically and politically, we are breeding like fruit flies, and we are arming ourselves to the teeth.
My hypothesis is that everything ELSE living on this planet - from bacteria to giant Sequoia trees to catfish - is rooting for Homo sapiens to embrace cannibalism.
Trylon the Messenger.
Human beings have the potential to spiritually evolve light-years beyond our present larval form. The problem is arrested spiritual development. Our DNA actually contains incredible potential in dormant form, just waiting to be activated by the appropriate spiritual methodology. For some interesting ideas on higher human potential, go to the website Reality Sandwich.
Consider the cockroach. It can be found as far back as 365 million years ago. It has evolved to be able to get inside a poorly sealed box of Wheaties.
What does =God= have against cockroaches? As Woody Allen said: "God is either cruel or incompetent."
Human beings are a part of nature you came from the earth and will return to it, what you do while you walk the earth is what your children learn, the very least you can do is tell the truth. Otherwise they will live on lies.
Then tell children that the earth upon which we live like a lifeboat in space is a SECOND HAND solar system. Every atom of our bodies existed before in some other heavenly body - that was smashed to smithereens. Tell them that Earth has been clobbered an unknown number of times by giant asteroids, and Life has had to start all over again. Entire galaxies collide with each other.
There is a misunderstanding that the Cosmos respects carbon-based Life. It giggles and gets particularly excited by the existence here of Homo sapaiens, a species that from day one has forced sexual entry upon helpless small children, has never stopped, and never will stop. If we humans can colonize other worlds we will discover something helpless, and then try to fuck it.
Anthropocentrism should be punishable.
Trylon
Human beings have lost touch with the thing that gives them life, the earth. You don't have to tell children you just have to show them how to find their own way. Everyone has to learn to walk, it is not a crime.
deleted by me
1848 is the wrong year to look at. Sure those revolutions were overthrown, and yes, the majority of the demands of the people in the mideast will not be realized today, like the majority of the demands of 1848 weren't realized.
It's wrong for a different reason than the author mentions. The Empires in 1848 were still reasonably stable, they had the ability to weather the storm of the crisis. I no longer believe we do. The better comparison is found a bit further back in history. Think of the fifth century. The collapse of the Roman Empire.
Then as now we're reaching the point when the food grown isn't enough to support the population. In the fifth century the cause of that was partly environmental, and partly caused by humans who didn't farm in a sustainable manner. Today, we are seeing the effects of climate change, and the farmers are also not farming the lands in a sustainable manner. (draining the aquifers for example, or using GMOs and only planting one sort of grain/crop in an entire field.)
Then as now the economy was severely damaged by years of inflation (then and now the government tried to cover up the loss of value in the money system) and when the debt got too high, the banks started to call in their loans. Piracy became a growth industry. Too few people worked at things that produced real value for the economy; again that is the case today.
I'm sure I could go on, or that others can add to what I said. I don't think we're on the verge of Armageddon (unless some fool decides to launch nukes) as there's not really any way to pay for that. I do think that we're on the verge of a collapse that will make the European dark ages look like a golden age.
Who are the barbarian hordes, then, if we're at the end of the Roman Empire? The Germans certainly aren't, nor the Huns.
It's more like the Corporations are.
The latest information is that the Dark Ages are greatly underrated. They were actually a period of great technical and social innovation, "Dark" to us because they weren't much recorded. Perhaps literacy is overrated.
Look up Transition Towns, for one approach to facing a new Dark Age. It's left-wing, communitarian survivalism, as well as a model that would get the world through the next disaster if it were widely adopted.
The barbarian hordes are the same then as they are now, we just call them terrorists and pirates, sometimes leftwing militias sometimes the rightwing ones... Who do you think the barbarians were back then?
I know that the Dark Ages weren't all that dark for the whole world. It's the period when the Muslims made quite a bit of progress in math and other sciences (and is the reason almost all the stars have Arabic names). For Europe tho, it wasn't a pleasant experience. Sure they didn't have the Black Death (that came later) but they did have the odd famine, the Roman Peace was over and the strongman was the king. If you like the idea of Anarchy than the Dark Ages would have been your idea of paradise, until you got old... if you got old...
I like your point about the corporations being the new barbarians, in some ways they could be that, but really they're just the modern version of the Senacas and other families like them from the last few centuries of Rome. The major difference is that the individual members of those families died, the corporations are bloody well immortal.
"Look up Transition Towns, for one approach to facing a new Dark Age. It's left-wing, communitarian survivalism, as well as a model that would get the world through the next disaster if it were widely adopted."
Thanks for showing us why to AVOID the "transition towns" movement.
It's just another ideology that pretends to know what the future portends.
A very interesting but slightly flawed comparison of two waves of rebellion and revolution. I fully agree that euphoria is not victory and that Karl Marx was wrong in 1848 but one must realize that it was largely due to ORGANIZED followers of Karl Marx that Germany and Austria eventually became modern republics and Russia shucked one despot for another. There was one European country which in 1848 made a lasting big step forward. The Netherlands morphed from a kingdom without a constitution to a constitutional parliamentary monarchy. The Dutch constitution was written by Thorbecke whose political credo was close to that of the British liberals. He was hated by the conservatives and religious parties.
We might also want to consider the other framing of 'revolution' in the vein of industrial and technological... the salience of a SIMPLE revolution, where the local focus stands in direct contrast to the globalized paradigm while addressing it.
So far the scope of this is articulated under the conceptually divided rubrics of hierarchic economy, ecology, supply and demand, etc- we lose sight of the fact that these are falsely divided for the intent purpose of utmost extraction from the human in interaction with the environments of marketplace, biome, community. What this conceptual divisiveness achieves is coercion of the individual to not even question HOW extraction is exercised in individual, family and community life.
What for instance is extracted from the lives of children whose parents are stressed out, working too many dead end jobs? the balance of nurturing creativity for one thing. Awareness of this is absolutely essential for re-framing options. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, thousands of towns are already engaged in the process.
We need a constant post on this site for the TRANSITION TOWNS movement
http://www.transitionnetwork.org/
Never forget that excluded populations have been engaged with this battle for a long time. Evolution follows a pattern, in the holographic sense, of mycelium. Tremendous webs of conceptual integrity slowly grow and begin to bear fruit, re-root, etc...
I think we have to frame the revolution in the local. Our move to globalization and large nations and the New World Order has caused or allowed our democracy to wither and die. The United States must be allowed to devolve into the 50 sovereign nations that we once were. We the people can not be in control of the organized government that is so out of our reach. We have a better change of making the changes we need state by state. We could return to the Articles of Confederation where we individual states may make agreements that are in the interests of the people, but without a stong federal government.
I'd love my state of California to return to our status of the Republic of California. All of our tax funds would remain in our state to meet our needs. We would not give our funds to the wars or to the crooks on Wall Street or the damned banks. We could have our own state bank to keep our funds here in our state. Our monetary system would not be under the control of a cabal of private bankers like the damn Federal Reserve. I see no advantage to being a part of the United States for the people of California. We write laws on environmental and organic farming standards the the Feds will not allow.. We write laws against the war on drugs which the feds will not allow. We write laws on requirements for milage for cars that the feds undo.
Free California!! They voted in Southern Sudan to create a new nation under international law. We can do that too. If we joined the union we can un join. California was declared to be the territory of the United States after a war (provoked by the US against Mexico) by Commodore Sloat when he took a war ship into Monterey harbor and declared this land to belong to the United States. He was not a resident of the state. Let us vote if we want to be in the United States. Everyone who is here now shall be able to vote. No illegal alliens here. This land belonged to Mexico--as did Texas and Arizona--who are the illegal aliens? The gold seekers are the illegal invadors. Viva California!! The Republic of California... a sovereign nation. We can write our Constitution and you can bet no corporation will have the rights of a person! We want a government of the people, by the people and for the people---which is not ours as members of the United States.
Put it on the ballot, I'll vote to secede.
Transition Towns US
http://www.transitionus.org/
Thanks for the link.
"Transition" to WHAT?
Like St. Paul's apocalyptic sect in the First Century, this movement pretends to know, with utter certainty, what the immediate future is.
It's hubristic, stupid, and ultimately self-fulfilling. Get enough people to adopt a "survivalist" mentality, and that's exactly the kind of future you'll forge for yourself.
It's a retreat into medieval superstition.
Good essay, but Robert Freeman can't be serious when he says the 1848 European revolutionaries somehow "forgot" to seize control of their militaries, enabling the entrenched elitesof the old regimes to retreat, regroup, and later eventually quell the populist uprisings through force of arms.
Good Prussians obey their orders, whether it's an order to stay in the barracks or an order to fire on the crowd. That's the realpolitik of Bismarck in a nutshell.
If the troops remain loyal to their command heirarchy and turn against the people in the streets, the story will not have a happy ending.
Bill from Saginaw
From the experience of the Paris Commune of 1871, Marx and Engels added a new preface to the Communist Manifesto (originally published in 1848) in 1872.
As Marx wrote, "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes," but first must "smash it." So the first thing to say is that the working class can't simply take over the state as it is.
http://socialistworker.org/2009/08/25/when-workers-run-the-state
In other words the architecture of the state is designed to serve the interests of a minority class that dominates a majority. The repressive role of that institutional structure cannot be completely eradicated by the changing the tenant.
Exactly. If the state is overthrown, it must be destroyed and replace with an entirely new model of decision making (full democracy). Centralized states have largely served the interests of the elite, whether in capitalist countries or Communist. Even if not every politician has that in their heart, those who rise to the top who make most of the decisions tend to have the most support from powerful institutions and wealthy in every democracy. The military has to be neutered and replaced with a non-hierarchical defense force that answers to the will of the entire country, not the orders of a few. If any group seizes the military and state power, they will become the new problem. Perhaps in their heart they think what they are doing is good, but the outcome will always be the same.
I have enjoyed reading your posts! Thank you.
Sir,
In 1848 Bismarck was still in school. He would not assume the Chancellory for another 14 years. Then, of course, there is that other pesky issue of the armies in all the other countries...
Your point that, "If the troops remain loyal to their command heirarchy and turn against the people in the streets, the story will not have a happy ending," is mine exactly.
Robert Freeman
RF -
The passage in your article that I found perplexing was this:
Referring to what ultimately proved "fateful for all the revolutions of 1848" you wrote "No one thought enough to seize control of the army, which was then used against them [the revolutionaries]."
I am by no means a serious student of this particular era in European history, but I find it hard to envision masses of folks angrily taking to the streets in Paris, Berlin, Vienna, and elsewhere without a great deal of thought, and considerable spirited discussion taking place that was directed towards what might happen if the King's guys with the King's guns were deployed to violently put the gathering crowds back in their proper place. How could German workers and merchants in 1848 "seize control" of the Prussian military establishment, any more than the people of Rome could have risen up and given orders to Caesar's Praetorian guard?
There's a very serious practical problem with civilians somehow giving orders to lowly foot soldiers, mid-level officers, or to high ranking generals and having those orders actually get carried out. Much easier said than done.
My point is it wasn't that the revolutionaries didn't think about it, they simply ran up against the giant institutional brick wall that separates soldiers from civilians. The best you can hope for is either mutiny at the grassroots level, or a switch in loyalty by the brass (a coup that ousts the old regime, or which at least leaves the incumbent tyrant defenseless when the mob closes in).
I agree that in Egypt, the upper echelon of the military has not been "converted to the cause" of the street protestors. But the fact that the Egyptian military stayed neutral was a huge positive. Folks were embracing and dancing with the rank and file troops in Tahir Square the day that Mubarak and Suileman folded and packed it in.
Very good essay, by the way. Glad to see you keeping an eye on your readers' reactions.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill,
Good comments. Actually, in the case of France it was even bizzare. The protesters got Louis Philippe to abdicate in three days. Then, they extended universal franchise and held elections. Napoleon III was elected and soon pulled a coup d' etat against the new republic. The naivete was inexplicable.
In Berlin, the liberals debated until they'd turned blue, but when the state needed force to resolve a problem in neighboring Shlessweig-Holstein, they had no army and literally had to ask the Hohenzollerns (the ruling monarchy) to borrow theirs, at which point Frederick William III just brushed them out of the way, in the brusque Prussian fashion to which you allude.
The larger point we agree upon. Without the capacity to exercise state power, the rebels will eventually be repulsed. The best illustration is playing out in Lybia.
Best Regards,
Robert Freeman
It is interesting that Freeman compares de Toqueville and Marx.
“Gentlemen, I warn you. Though the violence is not yet upon us, we are sleeping on a volcano.”~ Alexis de Tocqueville, addressing the French parliament, January, 1848
Karl Marx’s opening words of The Communist Manifesto: “A specter is haunting Europe. It is the specter of communism.”
I would argue that these two quotes are not really that different: they both indicate that the period was pregnant with revolutionary change. Marx didn't say that the proletariat was taking over, he was saying that the old order was being "haunted" by an increasingly conscious working class that wanted its freedom. But it is obligatory for liberals like Freeman to say that "Marx was wrong".
This is one article that would be far improved if the author had provided sources.
Marx actually wrote a book about the period called: "Class Struggles in France, 1848 - 1850. Whereas the de Toqueville bibliography only includes a book on the revolution of 1789. Marx wasn't simply writing as a historian but as an historical materialist, journalist and activist.
There are many good things in the article, and this one I think is the most valuable:
"In each case, the forces of reaction took stock of the situation, assessed theirs and the rebels’ resources, and mounted carefully conceived, methodically executed counter-revolutions. Two factors proved critical in reversing the gains of the revolutions. First, there were stark class divisions among the revolutionaries which the reactionaries easily exploited. And second, in none of the revolts had the revolutionaries taken control of the instruments of power. These factors proved decisive in the monarchs regaining control of their states."
But here is one where I have some disagreement (and it shows Freeman's liberalism):
"The antidote is class solidarity through education."
I would say this: The antidote is solidarity through class struggle.
The struggle itself will provide the "education" or, the advancement in political consciousness, required to take on the ruling class.
On the whole, however, this is one of Freeman's best, and it stands out amongst so much of the wishy-washy pablum we get here.
Great Post.
"But it is obligatory for liberals like Freeman to say that "Marx was wrong".
I noticed this also, and almost stopped reading right there.
Solidarity emerg from class struggle. The xperience of rebelling with your comrades against unjust authority is a heady and contagious experience.
This is better than Freeman's previous effort, but he has yet to come fully to grips with the national Democratic ladership's alliance with the banksters against the rest of us.
Finally, the revolution in the US is unlikely to precede the collapse of the Empire, but once that collapse begins, a revolution is likely to follow.
Re: "I would say this: The antidote is solidarity through class struggle.
The struggle itself will provide the "education" or, the advancement in political consciousness, required to take on the ruling class."
Dead on!
Great article.
The top 1% are the enemy of freedom and justice here and abroad.
"Right now the Earth is shaking and the ground is shifting under the feet of those who are in charge." said Moore
"America is not broke ... Wisconsin is not broke," Moore said. "The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers."
Those "rulers" in the 1% have names. They also have histories. They also belong to organizations. Look hard at who they are and what they claim to represent. If you succeed, you will be free of their propaganda forever.
But you won't be comfortable.