tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post5007187614351401487..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Vive la Révolutionbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-79537484977354266222018-08-31T09:43:17.972-07:002018-08-31T09:43:17.972-07:00"I don't see how the paragraph above comp..."I don't see how the paragraph above compliments this. We all have a Weltanshauungen". I think that what EvKL meant by world philosophies in this quote was in the same sense of "Ideology" for Voegelin, that is a world view that believes in: <br /><br />(1) apocalypse, the idea that this present world of imperfection will be followed by a more perfect phase;<br /> <br />(2) gnosticism, knowledge of how to bring about the more perfect world;<br /> <br />(3) immanentization, that human action on earth rather than divine action in a transcendent realm will bring about the desired end;<br /><br />(4) scientism, the belief that modern science will assist us in finally transforming man and his natural world into paradise;<br /> <br />I may be wrong in this interpretation, though. And I completely agree with your points that the terrible political philosophies of the West came about as a result of Christian virtues gone mad (could we say as a result of man embracing "Ideologies", or as would be called in others times, heresies?).Ivonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-69090696622106447002018-08-29T20:46:54.700-07:002018-08-29T20:46:54.700-07:00Ivo,
"immanentization of the eschaton"
...Ivo,<br /><br />"immanentization of the eschaton"<br /><br />That's quite a phrase. I was going to guess what this means, but my curiosity got the better of me. I gather that it means basically to endeavor to bring about Heaven on earth.<br /><br />I agree with you that all variants of leftism have their version of the Millennium or a Utopia they are trying to bring into reality (often by any means necessary), but I don't see how the paragraph above compliments this. We all have a Weltanshauungen. Even the most hard core conservative has a world view. That's why he cares to try and conserve something. This doesn't mean that he wishes to impose this world view on everyone else. If that were the case, he'd be a leftist.<br /><br />I'm not very familiar with Voegelin, though I do like his correlation of Nazism and Communism with Gnosticism. I'm not so sure that's the strongest correlation to be made, but it's one I certainly hadn't thought of. <br /><br />This all reinforces the conviction I first became aware of through G.K. Chesterton that all the terrible political philosophies of the West came about as a result of Christian virtues gone mad after they became detached from one another during the collapse of Christendom.<br /><br />Christian Eschatology: We await the Apocalypse and the coming of the Kingdom of God to earth and the reign of Jesus Christ as the one true King. He will judge the living and dead and his Kingdom will have no end.<br /><br />Secular Eschatology: We don't need God! We can bring about a better Heaven on earth without Him, just as soon as we convert or get rid of everyone who disagrees with us. We will judge who lives and who dies and our brutality in bringing about our vision will know no limits.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-33682478856956420122018-08-29T10:21:05.697-07:002018-08-29T10:21:05.697-07:00Much of the problem of understanding the the left-...Much of the problem of understanding the the left-right continuum is that in Europe part of being a liberal is fighting against monarchy and the Catholic church while in the US it is just monarchy and size of state.RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-38289194588686334292018-08-29T10:02:06.131-07:002018-08-29T10:02:06.131-07:00"Political science needs a better classificat..."Political science needs a better classification system."<br /><br />At least EvKL defined his terms. Perhaps the trouble lies in the continuum - the spaces in between the "classifications" are not void, but filled with the thoughts of its neighbors.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-58418816420667100112018-08-29T06:52:34.297-07:002018-08-29T06:52:34.297-07:00From The Menace of the Herd, also from EvKL:
&quo...From The Menace of the Herd, also from EvKL:<br /><br />" A certain symbiosis between liberalism and ochlocracy is a frequent phenomenon in the nineteenth and even in the twentieth century. In the case of cooperation of these two ideologies liberalism is ordinarily of the nonaristocratic, Manchesterian type which shows a remarkable parallel with communism. Both, bolshevism and modern, bourgeois liberalism, started as economic theories and became Weltanschauungen, world philosophies". <br /><br />Here it is the "something" in the bad liberalism: immanentization of the eschaton, as Voegelin would say.Ivonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-52262246866533708762018-08-29T06:48:07.210-07:002018-08-29T06:48:07.210-07:00RMB,
I think you are right side up. Bismarck is d...RMB,<br /><br />I think you are right side up. Bismarck is definitely a leftist, and according to EvKL, "the leftist is always a statist." I believe you are correct about him.<br /><br />I think the disconnect here is the wide net with which EvKL, and perhaps history itself, has used to define a liberal. I've always heard (even from EvKL) that only in America did the term liberal get hijacked to mean its opposite, but it seems to me the same thing happened on the Continent and England if people like Clemenceau, Bismarck, and Churchill could be considered liberals.<br /><br />Political science needs a better classification system.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-68084553763857099092018-08-28T11:21:54.175-07:002018-08-28T11:21:54.175-07:00Rien,
Here's another excerpt from the essay l...Rien,<br /><br />Here's another excerpt from the essay linked above that may fill in some gaps.<br /><br />"The synthesis of ethnic nationalism (German, Czech, Polish, Slovene, Italian, or Ukrainian), and classical liberalism, might seem a bit strange to Americans, but it was nevertheless a reality. A similar situation prevailed in Germany where Bismarck, originally a Conservative and a Prussian patriot, had broken with the Conservatives and received wholehearted support from the National Liberal party, whose backers were the grande bourgeoisie moneyed interests, big industry, and the adherents of a mild form of Pan-Germanism. The National Liberals were also motivated by an anticlerical bias directed against the Catholic rather than against the Lutheran clergy. Bismarck's Kulturkampf, his struggle against the Catholic Church leading to the imprisonment of bishops, the expulsion of the Jesuits, and the introduction of compulsory civil marriage (aping the French), fit very well into this pattern. Obviously, all this was not to the liking of Prussian Conservatives, to whom Bismarck was a man of the Left. Of course, the "Iron Chancellor" was anything but a traditionalist. The new German flag, Prussia's black and silver, was broadened with the red of the Revolution. Prussian Conservatives naturally stuck to the old colors."<br /><br />This is EvKL, not me, and I don't claim to have intimate knowledge on the subject, but EvKL was probably smarter and more knowledgeable about the Continent than I'll ever be, so I question him, if at all, with great care.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-44522300403691355642018-08-28T09:42:44.337-07:002018-08-28T09:42:44.337-07:00I thought Bismarck was a statist and his system wa...I thought Bismarck was a statist and his system was a blue print for Mussolini and Hitler. This discussion has flipped me upside down a bit.RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-25741442985561544082018-08-28T09:35:41.834-07:002018-08-28T09:35:41.834-07:00ATL: OK, now you have done it... I have to find a ...ATL: OK, now you have done it... I have to find a good history of Germany's formation and early years... sigh... lol (quite an interesting country actually - I've lived there for about 20 years)Rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-31650632812904137772018-08-28T09:04:56.737-07:002018-08-28T09:04:56.737-07:00"for someone to comment that what EvKL meant ..."for someone to comment that what EvKL meant by "Old Liberalism" is not the same thing as is meant by the term "Classical Liberalism.""<br /><br />He certainly included some classical liberals in that camp, including Mises and Richard Cobden. But he also included what I would consider fake liberals like Bismarck and Clemenceau. I can't say that I understand his classification of liberals, but I think he's classing them based more on cultural and religious views rather than political and economic. I tend to do the reverse, but perhaps this is a blindside of my libertarian tendency to compartmentalize everything, instead of taking in the whole picture. I also don't know enough about many of these characters to dispute EvKL's classification intelligently.<br /><br />"the thing is, there is something in the “bad” that would implement just such a policy"<br /><br />I certainly agree.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-41629519382253170432018-08-28T06:22:03.991-07:002018-08-28T06:22:03.991-07:00Yes they were big. It was the party of Bismarck.Yes they were big. It was the party of Bismarck.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-62842930851699579872018-08-27T23:51:51.903-07:002018-08-27T23:51:51.903-07:00ATL: "So German liberals compromised their id...ATL: "So German liberals compromised their ideals by accepting an interventionist state in order to arrest socialism."<br /><br />Hmm, I do not know enough of this part of history, but were the German liberals big enough to actually have an impact on german politics? Or were they just a flee riding along and would have chosen a different route if they would have been in power?Rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-16885412266695243092018-08-27T21:41:53.775-07:002018-08-27T21:41:53.775-07:00Old Liberalism to EvKL was the liberalism from the...Old Liberalism to EvKL was the liberalism from the Enlightment until the generation of Professor Wilhelm Röpke (classified by EvKL as a Neo Liberal). Old Liberalism was marked by anticlericalism, faith in democracy as a political panacea, faith in man's reason and the continual progress of mankind (progressivism) and anti hierarchy/egalitarian sentiments. Sound familiar? Old Liberalism is indeed leftist.Ivonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-2125438101815001082018-08-27T14:23:20.145-07:002018-08-27T14:23:20.145-07:00ATL, as you know I have struggled (and continue to...ATL, as you know I have struggled (and continue to struggle) with reconciling the good and bad of classical liberalism. While I, too, certainly can forgive the odd quote here and there, I think statements such as these point to the "bad" of classical liberalism.<br /><br />Do I believe a Jefferson would implement such a policy if he deemed it necessary? Irrelevant what I think but I can give a very strong benefit of the doubt that he would not – the thing is, there is something in the “bad” that would implement just such a policy. In other words, there is something in the liberal strain that made him write it, and it is that "something" that is of concern.<br /><br />What I am waiting for, however…the thing that limits my "smug look of satisfaction," is for someone to comment that what EvKL meant by "Old Liberalism" is not the same thing as is meant by the term "Classical Liberalism." So I will remain humble for another day or two.<br /><br />Both ATL & Rien, I also hope that EvKL draws this out further...maybe it is nothing more than the connection suggested by me in this comment – the common point (among others) being the aforementioned Jefferson quote.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-20258158777856368382018-08-27T10:40:56.986-07:002018-08-27T10:40:56.986-07:00https://mises.org/library/cultural-background-ludw...https://mises.org/library/cultural-background-ludwig-von-mises/html/c/589<br /><br />In his essay, "The Cultural Background of Ludwig von Mises," (a fantastic essay!) he mentions this:<br /><br />"This fact has to be faced: our German Liberals were secretly state-worshippers because they hoped that a powerful state would break the "forces of yesterday." Hence they were by no means identical with, let us say, the British Liberals of the Gladstone type. Thus a situation arose, even in the Austrian universities, in which Liberals and Socialists were not so far apart." - EvKL<br /><br />Perhaps this is what he meant when he mentioned "in certain ways" from a historical context?<br /><br />Why did liberals become interventionists?<br /><br />From the same essay:<br /><br />"In Germany, as well as in Austria, [], the National Liberals were, oddly enough, culturally and politically, though not economically, Liberals. As nationalists they wanted a strong state and thus they were by nature interventionists; in order to arrest the growth of socialism, they promoted the Provider State."<br /><br />So German liberals compromised their ideals by accepting an interventionist state in order to arrest socialism. Gee I wonder how that turned out? Reminds me of American conservatives who compromised their limited government convictions to combat communism.<br /><br />The lesson? Be like Mises (and Rorschach from Watchmen). Don't ever compromise.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-36779854221615913272018-08-27T09:20:18.426-07:002018-08-27T09:20:18.426-07:00"EvLK would see similarities in liberalism an..."EvLK would see similarities in liberalism and Marxism. Although it would be interesting to know exactly what similarities he does see"<br /><br />I second that!Rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-5313542847906373552018-08-27T09:18:22.523-07:002018-08-27T09:18:22.523-07:00Thanks BM, most... entertaining? (and ugly)
I like...Thanks BM, most... entertaining? (and ugly)<br />I liked the epilogue best... it hits home. Theology, ideology, morality all synonyms?Rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-20103168488750089402018-08-27T08:40:14.266-07:002018-08-27T08:40:14.266-07:00The American and French Revolutions were bourgeois...The American and French Revolutions were bourgeois revolutions. They did not at all dismantle or for that matter even challenge the legitimacy of state apparatuses of power. They did not call for dismantling the mechanisms of oppression such as the judiciary, that complex of legislature, courts, prisons, police, and their bureaucratic administration. To the contrary, they not only kept these institutions of oppression in place they greatly expanded their sphere of intervention and power of domination. The American and French Revolutions merely transferred control of the state bureaucracies of power from the aristocracy and monarchy to the bourgeoisie. This is the fundamental effect, the realpolitik if you like, of these revolutions. Victorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12985538497409080098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-86203793852696838412018-08-27T07:18:11.281-07:002018-08-27T07:18:11.281-07:00"Were there but an Adam & Eve left in eve..."Were there but an Adam & Eve left in every country, & left free..."<br /><br />Ouch. This quote did not age well, nor should it have savored well at the time. I didn't know about this one. Jefferson was certainly robed in full leftist attire here. <br /><br />I do not deny that both him and Tom Paine had their leftist sides, as most thinkers on liberty have (especially in the days they were breaking away from entrenched centralized monarchies), but overall their right side trumps their left, and if modern leftists draw from them, they must omit the majority of their positions.<br /><br />"But other men were infinitely more responsible than John Adams in pushing the ideas of the French Revolution, men like the Anglo American Thomas Paine who much later became the hero of the Nazi playwright Johst. Other Nazis, for instance a certain Dr. Friedrich Schonemann, praised Jefferson and damned Hamilton, seeing in the former a precursor of the historic evolution leading to the victory of the Common Man-and of German National Socialism." - EvKL, Leftism<br /><br />Here, EvLK tries to show an instance where modern leftists (of a particularly nasty variety) have drawn from Jefferson and Paine. I'm sure Nazis just loved the notion of decentralized federated government, equality of liberty, freedom of speech, and the right of insurrection should the government infringe on the inalienable natural rights of the people. Here is an early example of the leftist's tactic of invoking Hitler to tarnish your opponents. Again, leftists must omit the majority of the convictions these men held, just as EvKL has done for his own non-leftist purposes.<br /><br />Maybe we should forgive him for this though since, "it took [him] many years in the United States to understand what makes<br />that country "tick." Being a foreigner, maybe he never did quite understand. For instance nowhere does he mention in the book Hamilton's transgressions against liberty and the momentum he ignited towards further centralization of power in the line of Lincoln, Roosevelt I and the Progressive Revolution.<br /><br />I don't know for sure, but I get the impression EvLK is not so great on the central bank issue (Hamilton's baby). I wonder if Erik was more Chicago School or Austrian School in his views on economics? I'm guessing the former. I know he was friends with Bill Buckley. No accounting for taste I suppose.<br /><br />"related to each other in certain ways"<br /><br />I'm imagining a smug look of satisfaction on your face. =) It should hardly be surprising that a monarchist like EvLK would see similarities in liberalism and Marxism. Although it would be interesting to know exactly what similarities he does see. I don't know if he pursues this line of thought in the book.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.com