Regarding a recent post at the Mises site by Chris Calton
entitled What Is Cultural Marxism?,
I offer some thoughts.
There is some real confusion about the origins and meaning
of the phrase Cultural Marxism. The confusion
begins by attributing cultural characteristics to Marxian theory. Marx developed a theory based on production,
not really so much on culture. The
proper place to look is Antonio Gramsci, an anti-Marxist communist if you will –
Gramsci’s theory was specifically and overtly aimed at culture.
Gramsci understood that the working class in the west would
not declare war on their middle class neighbors as long as they shared
Christian values. It was these values
that he believed must be destroyed if communism was to be realized. Therefore, the proper term would be Cultural
Gramsci-ism.
What is the definition and objective of Cultural Marxism (to
use the common phrase)? Destroy
Christianity, Christian ethics, and Christian values. Here is at least some idea of understating
the definition:
While firmly committed to global
Communism, [Gramsci] knew that that violence would fail to win the West.
American workers (proletariat) would never declare war on their middle class
neighbors as long as they shared common Christian values. So the Italian
communist -- a contemporary of Lenin -- wrote an alternative plan for a silent
revolution. The main weapons would be deception, manipulation and infiltration.
Hiding their Marxist ideology, the new Communist warriors would seek positions
of influence in seminaries, government, communities, and the media.
Gramsci himself rejected
Christianity and all its transcendent claims. Nevertheless, he knew Christian
culture existed.... For that was the force binding all the classes... into a
single, homogeneous culture. It was a specifically Christian culture, in which
individual men and women understood that the most important things about human
life transcended the material conditions in which they lived out their mortal
lives.
How will this play out?
It should be obvious in everything that underlies the polarized views of
red vs. blue counties in the United States, of the elite coasts vs. flyover
country. Where this leads? I doubt it leads to rapprochement any time
soon. Ideally it leads to peaceful decentralization
and secession.
However, some see civil war in the
future. Others see that the “red” voters
will vote
in a strongman that makes Trump look like Mother Theresa if they don’t get
what they want with Trump; the objective being “we will teach those SOBs a lesson
and bring them to heel.”
While libertarians (contrary to Marxists) embrace property
rights, the battle is no longer here; the battle for liberty vs. communism is being
fought in the battle for the traditional western culture, grounded in
Christianity and Christian ethics.
Gramsci outlined this.
Hence, libertarians that embrace slogans like “anything
peaceful” play right into Gramsci. While
they have their eyes on “property,” they are ignorant of the war being fought
right in front of their noses. Such
libertarians contribute to losing both the battle and the war. My bet is “anything peaceful” equals “Gramsci
wins.”
And my bet is that those who want your property and your
life understand this – and understand it much better than libertarians who don’t.
Those who value liberty might consider incorporating
this reality into their thinking.
BM
ReplyDeleteFaved this one (the whole article in fact):
"While libertarians (contrary to Marxists) embrace property rights, the battle is no longer here; the battle for liberty vs. communism is being fought in the battle for the traditional western culture, grounded in Christianity and Christian ethics. Gramsci outlined this."
And that is exactly why today, European nations that - due to "historical circumstances" - were less influenced by US post-war multiculturalism, nations like Poland, Hungary and Czechia display a deep sense of their traditional national culture, still rooted in Christianity. This battle is now and indeed right in front of us.
And therefore right here, right NOW, we need to refocus on arguing the finer details of property rights and the mere filling up of "cultural gaps" beyond the NAP in a future libertopia.. "to keyboards!"
[*Trigger alert for bleeding heart libertarians and other snowflakes: brutalist display of cultural self defence..*]
Poles denounce Global Leftist propag. Media
-Sag.
Sag, that is an interesting factum. Under the soviet regime the population was rather starved (sometimes literally). There was no glut like in the west. As such the population there still has a very good contact with reality. Not like the west where the glut has made reality something you philosophise about. For example the post-modernistic philosophy which entirely denies the existence of reality (its all imaginary).
DeleteGuess which population will be more resilient against immigration based on gut-feelings?
> Hence, libertarians that embrace slogans like “anything peaceful” play right into Gramsci. While they have their eyes on “property,” they are ignorant of the war being fought right in front of their noses.
DeleteAbsolutely.
Is is just me, or is the libertarian community splitting down the middle? I se some libertarians (like myself) vering to the conservative side and supporting culture as an integral part of any society. And I see the more 'hard core' libertarians insisting on their old ideals and basically becoming irrelevant.
Hi Rien,
DeleteI'll rephrase my point in terms of reality, one for post-war Western Europe and the other for Eastern Europe.
Western Europe: rapid and profound "Americanization" of the national cultures (main target Germany); part of the package: multiculturalism, diversity propaganda and political correctness to suppress any dissenting voices. Viewed as a psychological experiment, one could describe today's escalation with "weapons of mass migration" as one of flooding with simultaneous response prevention, which is a very powerful way to demoralize the native population.
Eastern Europe: none/far less Americanization, so less infestation with multiculturalism. Hence the mass demonstration like the one in the vid.
-Sag.
Gramsci is winning.
ReplyDeleteMost people will not and perhaps cannot change their views, even in the face of overwhelming evidence or airtight logic and arguments. Even in the former USSR oldsters still pine for the Soviet days.
We need to break up, period. Dopey universalist libertarians (redundant) don't understand this at all.
Or in fact maybe they prefer Gramsci-ism to any liberty that permits religion, family, & bourgeois life.
Mr. Deist,
DeleteI am certainly not as well versed as most commenters here (or even close) so I would ask you this please. What is the description of myself or others who believe in the universal application of property rights and the Non Aggression Principle but who do not believe in any government, most especially a world wide one?
Those of us who do not believe in the "mob rule" of democracy or any other form of coerced management but who do believe that the moral aspects of individual cultures and religions can "fill out" any aspects of the NAP that are necessary for individuals to live peacefully together, as long as those particulars are voluntarily agreed to and property rights and the NAP are the supreme commandments.
You said above "Dopey universalist libertarians " yet previously in an article saying "Certainly there are universal normative principles found in libertarianism, especially natural law libertarianism. All humans have a right to sovereignty over their physical bodies and minds, a right to own justly-acquired property, and to freely associate (or disassociate) with others. Self-ownership and property rights are central tenets of libertarianism."
https://mises.org/wire/self-determination-not-universalism-goal
I most certainly agree with your second quote above and I know this is my ignorance and lack of understanding of libertarian history and theory but what can one call himself or look to for inspiration, who believes that a free unregulated market, property rights and the NAP are universal concepts, not limited to a specific culture and applicable to all of whatever religion or nationality who accepts it?
I know you are a busy man so even a link to an article would be much appreciated.
Thank you,
Tahn
Tahn,
DeleteI hope my response does not rob you of a reply from Mr. Deist, but I can't help pointing you in what I consider to be the right direction with regards to your question concerning universality and self determination.
As with 99.999% of the burning questions facing libertarians today, we may turn once again to the maestro, Rothbard, who answered (nearly) it all half a century ago.
In his essay, "Just War," Rothbard addresses this issue nearly 25 years prior to the "Battle of the Jeffs (as I'm calling it)".
https://mises.org/library/just-war
"Many of my friends and colleagues are hesitant to concede the existence of universal natural rights, lest they find themselves forced to support American, or worldwide intervention, to try to enforce them. But for classical natural-law international jurists, that consequence did not follow at all. If, for example, Tutsis are slaughtering Hutus in Rwanda or Burundi, or vice versa, these natural lawyers would indeed consider such acts as violations of the natural rights of the slaughtered; but that fact in no way implies any moral or natural-law obligation for any other people in the world to rush in to try to enforce such rights. We might encapsulate this position into a slogan: "Rights may be universal, but their enforcement must be local," or, to adopt the motto of the Irish rebels: Sinn Fein, "ourselves alone." A group of people may have rights, but it is their responsibility, and theirs alone, to defend or safeguard such rights."
Self ownership is universal, but let's let people arrive at that conclusion for themselves - in their own good time, in political units of their own choosing. And let us not make universalist arguments in favor of egalitarian open borders, aggressive foreign policy, or disruptive foreign aid. Amen.
By the way, I wasn't trying to diminish the importance of Mr. Deist's wonderful speech, and his several essays along the same lines; that is exactly what libertarians needed to hear. It's what I needed to hear. I just think it's funny that no matter what new ground we think we're treading these days, we almost invariably find the footprints of the Polymath of Brooklyn Polytechnic leading the way.
"What is the description of myself or others who believe in the universal application of property rights and the Non Aggression Principle but who do not believe in any government, most especially a world wide one?" - Tahn
DeleteA libertarian like me. I care about the fate of other cultures. I wish they would adopt the principles of liberty. I consider these to be axiomatic, and thus universal, under Hoppe's justification. But we as libertarians in the Western world have enough barriers in the way of our own culture's attainment of liberty to deal with. Better to think of liberty in the context of the right of self determination rather than as an objective, universally-true, axiom of human nature.
We can't afford the latter option, because in the battle of hearts and minds to come, razor's-edge sharp philosophical arguments lose to emotional cultural appeals, I'm willing to bet, nearly every time.
ATL,
DeleteThank you so very much for your articulate reply and to the link of Professor Rothbard's "Just War".
I most certainly agree that we in the west have a lot of barriers to obtaining a libertarian society and I am most certainly opposed to any imperial aggression, "egalitarian open borders, aggressive foreign policy, or disruptive foreign aid" (except such aid as individuals might wish to privately give) and opposed generally to the state. I also agree that "Rights may be universal, but their enforcement must be local,"
However I must say that I respectfully disagree with your statement to " let people arrive at that conclusion for themselves - in their own good time, in political units of their own choosing." Fight for them, probably not but inform them of this marvelous axiom of freedom, certainly. It took the western world some 25 centuries to arrive at this seemingly simple Principle, through the genius of Professor Rothbard and he had the combined writings of several other genius's to build on and imho, the guiding hand of the Creator. I believe that it is indeed a "Universal Principle" and a sound one and we should do all we can to spread that belief and understanding to all people of the world, in all languages. Let them then, make use of this guideline as they will, perhaps even show them how their own culture or religions can be tucked safely inside of it but do not hide it from them. To do so would be like putting a basket over a lamp.
Let them see, that there is an alternative to a state or king.Let them see that there is hope for a world free of tyranny and war. Let the NAP give them hope as it has given me.
I must say that it has been somewhat disheartening lately to hear others imply (both here and elsewhere) that the NAP was only for a western or even just a Christian society or was even inferior to certain religious beliefs, as I am convinced that the hearts of all mankind yearn for peace for themselves and their families and wish to enjoy the fruits of their honest labor.
I also understand and concur with your observation "Better to think of liberty in the context of the right of self determination rather than as an objective, universally-true, axiom of human nature. ...We can't afford the latter option, because in the battle of hearts and minds to come, razor's-edge sharp philosophical arguments lose to emotional cultural appeals".
It's like I learned back in advertising, "Sell the sizzle, not the steak".
Your refreshing words have encouraged me ATL and I again, thank you!
I am off to read "Just War".
libertarian Tahn
You're welcome to try to convince them, but I'm going to spend all of my effort in my own backyard, so to speak. Liberty in China is someone else's problem. Texas is a big enough goal, and right now even that seems likely impossible.
DeleteBesides, the best way to convince others might be by giving them a good example. Otherwise, they might perceive you as an outsider, an infiltrator, and question your motives without hearing your arguments. In other words, your well meaning effort to promote liberty might ignite a nationalistic reaction against you and your 'crazy theories' of stateless liberty.
I don't know where you're from, but I would suggest you focus on your home town, state, or nation. This is where people know you and trust that you're 'one of them.' Present your ideas as a natural outgrowth of the culture you identify with.
Be mindful of the three ancient pillars to persuasion: logos (reason and science), ethos (personal character and competency, both of yourself and those you cite), and pathos (emotion and moral values). Good luck!
http://www.conversationagent.com/2017/01/persuasive-speech.html
ATL,
DeleteI appreciate so much your reasoned and articulate responses to my rambles. Thank you.
I certainly agree about concentrating ones efforts at home, beginning with ourselves, especially since the only language I speak and write (barely) is English. I guess it was the intimation that property rights and the NAP only applied to Western cultures that confused and disappointed me. As Mr. Deist is quoted above and with which I wholeheartedly agree "All humans have a right to sovereignty over their physical bodies and minds, a right to own justly-acquired property, and to freely associate (or disassociate) with others. " To me, this means that the Non Aggression Principle applies to all people of the planet. They all need to understand that a state or strongman violates this Universal right. It is the confusion of many, including here in America, that a state "gives" us freedom, when of course, the opposite is true.
There is another reason for spreading the concept worldwide, which I touched on briefly in my response to Bionics excellent question, "Would You Pull The Plug?". It may take a worldwide and simultaneous dissolving of statism for the world to survive such a transition. A few powerful nation/states and their desire for revenge or control may thwart others desire for the true freedom of libertarianism. Spreading the philosophy worldwide of libertarian freedom and equality, under whatever name, might help level the field, so to speak.
I also believe that Western libertarians have the ability to show others that their cultures and religions can co-exist within the NAP, as long as property rights and personal sovereignty are the supreme right of each and every human.
Still, as you say, we must begin within our own hearts and minds to apply these truths and to share them with whom we can but also to recognize that they are indeed, Universal Truths, applicable to all of humanity, although your concern of igniting a "nationalistic" reaction, is a valid one, even here at home.
Thank you for the reminder of "the Three pillars", although it would seem that the most powerful one used in today's world is "emotion." Care indeed must be taken.
ATL, Thank you again for the link to Professor Rothbards "A Just War". What a great read and as a Southerner, his defense of the Souths War for Independence was wonderful and his definition of "Yankees" seemed spot on. As an aside, I was 8 or so years old before I realized that "Damn" and "Yankees" were two different words. ;-)
Tahn
Tahn,
DeleteYou're very welcome and thank you for your respectful and reasoned responses.
"It may take a worldwide and simultaneous dissolving of statism for the world to survive such a transition."
Having states around a stateless society is certainly a problem when you consider, beyond simple and overt invasion, how many ways a foreign state can corrupt and influence local authorities. But all these problems exist under a state as well. I contend that a stateless order will be better able to fend off such attempts of corruption, infiltration and invasion, and so I don't believe that for liberty to stick, we need a simultaneous worldwide conversion. I think this is a case where we are afraid to commit to liberty because it might not have every single contingency spelled out, meanwhile the state we live under currently is just assumed to have it all handled when it most certainly does not.
I'm not even confident that a simultaneous universal adoption of liberty would be desirable even if it could be achieved peacefully. Maybe some people aren't ready for liberty. Maybe some societies would self destruct into decadence, crime and despair. I don't want that on my conscience.
This is why I'm keeping my goals close to home, with a people and a culture that I know could handle life by the NAP if they could just be convinced politically to do so.
The struggle of the diverse European peoples to preserve their national identity and protect it against Gramscian globalism is also the struggle to preserve decentralization, relative to the EU monolith forced upon us over here.
ReplyDeleteIn this regard, I can only agree with former Czech president Vaclav Klaus, who said that "Nation-states are better than a Global State."
Back to the Polish example. Would have been a pleasant surprise if e.g. the Mises Institute (Europe) had somehow been involved in grassroots rebellions like this. Like a bona fide libertarian version of the staged colour "revolutions" of the Soros empire.
Alas, an example of libertarian "action" that one sees promoted way too often i.m.o. goes somewhat like this: aged opportunist, hopping from one 3rd world country to the next in an attempt to be left relatively alone by whatever government, while using libertarian-speak as a sales pitch for foreign real-estate projects. Without nation, without culture, without roots, not one to ever fight in your corner for liberty against the Gramscian destruction of culture. But one thing such an individual can certainly be proud of: never violated the NAP.
Example:Why He Lives in Uruguay
-Sag.
Sag
DeleteThoughts on a couple of your comments:
“…filling up of "cultural gaps" beyond the NAP…”
A nice for the role of the Church…or church? Too bad the universal Church is caught up in social justice and redistribution, and most protestant denominations are caught up in empire and Zionist worship. And then there is this:
http://thesaker.is/the-saker-interviews-michael-a-hoffman-ii/
“Why He Lives in Uruguay”
There is no future for liberty or Western Civilization if this is the path taken. To each his own. It just seems to me contrary to the time preference that we know corresponds to the advancement of society when we think about economics; likely means the same when we consider the advancement of civilization.
@ Sag
Delete"Alas, an example of libertarian "action" that one sees promoted way too often i.m.o. goes somewhat like this: aged opportunist, hopping from one 3rd world country to the next in an attempt to be left relatively alone by whatever government, while using libertarian-speak as a sales pitch for foreign real-estate projects. Without nation, without culture, without roots, not one to ever fight in your corner for liberty against the Gramscian destruction of culture."
A couple of points:
The history of the US is that the people from mostly Europe fled here for freedom from oppressive regime's and/also for economic opportunity.
The same rationale is potentially in play at the point that people feel that the demographic shifts in the US no longer support a culture of true freedom(aka being left alone by gov't).
The subjective notion of "when" it may be or might not be wise to go someplace else is just that.
My point being is that not only historically is there a culture of seeking out freedom by voting with your feet, but this also gives rise to an opportunity to join a community of like minded individuals that represent freedom and/or Western Civilization even if means ending up in a place like Argentina, Uruguay , or New Hampshire for that matter.
I understand your concern Sag, but very simply- sometimes the demographics of any given area change to the point that is no "fighting" it.(reasonably)
I think the best outcome for the United States is a breakup USSR style(I've a feeling it won't happen as peacefully unfortunately if/when it does occur) in which case our "options" are multiplied(pick a state more in line with your viewpoints) and some degree of decentralization occurs that helps liberty along a bit.
But that being said, why wouldn't anyone of explore a community of like minded individuals over going to war with commies over a specific territory? Are the costs worth it? (all subjective questions)
You might feel like Doug Casey is a scam artist and that people that explored his Argentinian community suckers, but no-one knows what will or won't work/develop.
It could very well be that a voluntary community of people with shared values could represent freedom/Western culture in Argentina. (but it may not)
Another point is that the subjective nature of such decisions involve risk like any other(like our ancestors decision to move to America from Europe).
That risk must be weighed against the risks of trying to fight against what appears now to be over a 50% demographic of at least "commie light" here in the US, which also appears to be getting worse.(one of the concerns re: immigration in general with our big welfare state incentive's those that may come here for that alone) In, fact, when my ancestors came here there was no welfare state, so at that time is was very clear the type of people that were being drawn. (unlike today)
I remain open to whatever opportunity presents itself to find communities that are more freedom oriented, even if that ends up someplace outside of the United States. (in the same tradition of my ancestors)
The demographic shift in the US has been significant in the last 20 years and seems to be picking up speed in the wrong direction...up until the SALT deductions were removed they were at least contained to certain states...but the shifts are now accelerating and expanding in a bad way.
BM
Delete"A nice for the role of the Church…or church? Too bad the universal Church is caught up in social justice and redistribution, and most protestant denominations are caught up in empire and Zionist worship."
And to add to your most welcome link: "too bad that zionists are busy preaching open borders for everyone except for their own tribe," as you've signalled earlier in your articles.
Sobering truths.
But even if the Church wasn't headed today by a convicted Argentinian SJW, I would still be sceptical about the "procedure," so to speak. I submit that the route from >> actual lived medieval religious culture to >> the 20th century drawing board of a theoretical NAP, is a one-way street. The reverse, even if Churches can still be considered Christian, is impossible. Formulated as: start with PP and NAP (how?) and then oh yes, some cultural filler to go with it. Won't work. What proof do I have to back up this hunch? Absolutely nothing!
Yet to me the NAP will always remain an artificial contruct, salvaged and extracted from the historical record of a once vibrant Medieval Christian Civilization. It is a sign of our times, a residue, it is what's left when Christianity and Christian natural law culture have finally been subtracted from the West. And with that, we're back at cultural Gramschism.
Saw this one on LRC: Willi Münzenberg’s Intellectual Progeny
Hi Nick,
Delete"The history of the US is that the people from mostly Europe fled here for freedom from oppressive regime's and/also for economic opportunity."
Yes, I know the history. A story Americans still like to tell, even today at the LvMI: If Europe Is so Much Better than the US, Why do they Keep Moving Here?
But what does it mean? Take the example of the Pilgrim Fathers. These Calvinist fanatics were persecuted in England and not without good reason. Some of them fled to the Netherla.. Low Countries, and in Amsterdam the Puritan infighting started almost right away. Some got tired of it and went to Leiden (only a 2.5 hour bike ride) and from there, in 1620 to their promised land overseas. Didn't flee from some "oppressive regime" in Holland. Dutch society simply didn't want them and they thought the Low Countries to be way too "liberal". Over here in Holland, we're still glad to be rid of them ;)
As for the "Anarchapulco option", I say to each his own of course. I just feel more affinity with the ones who stay and stand their ground. I believe that every libertarian has at least a moral responsibility towards himself and others to fight for the fragmentation of power, not to evade it by hopping to the next best exotic refuge, nor to seek comfort in the "remote regions of high libertarian theory," to quote a well known passage. Just my 2(euro)cts.
-Sag.
"I believe that every libertarian has at least a moral responsibility towards himself and others to fight for the fragmentation of power, not to evade it by hopping to the next best exotic refuge, nor to seek comfort in the "remote regions of high libertarian theory,""
DeleteI don't think you'll get many libertarians arguing against the notion of self-responsibility, but you will get questions about responsibility to others(ground we already touched on lightly re; positivism).
The idea that searching out a better option from a libertarian perspective might constitute "high libertarian theory"(if I understand your meaning properly) seems out of kilter with the notion of voluntary communities, voting with your feet, etc.- which seems very base to me philosophically speaking.
"But what does it mean?"
Well, you referenced one specific time in the history of the US and I was speaking more broadly(obviously one side of my family has Italian lineage). By wiki the claim is the Pilgrims left England due to political volatility(and religious oppression) but in Holland they were interestingly concerned with maintaining their cultural identity and then moved on again.
My intention was to speak more broadly regarding the successive waves of immigration from Ireland, Italy, Germany, etc. et al, most of which shared the common elements of seeking economic opportunity and more freedom.
As there was no safety net/welfare state for much of US history, those drawn here during that time were naturally predisposed to certain base qualities(hard work, risk taking, family structure, etc. et al) despite their geological differences.
It also explains to some extent why often time people of certain Asian cultures can come here and be so successful despite being from a background with little Western cultural influence.(until they get here anyway)
I'm not dismissing out of hand the notion that people with cultural pre-dispositions might also hurt liberty and free markets when they arrive here...I think it's safe to say there are some that come and take advantage of the welfare state and those that do probably lean socialist in their philosophies to the detriment of everyone else.
Immigration is a difficult and complex topic, however a case could be made it was much less so before the welfare state.
All that being said, I personally feel no obligation stand in front of an oncoming train if I determine the demographics of the US are moving in the wrong direction. While I can appreciate that you have "affinity" for those who stand their ground, it might also be due to the fact you and your family have remained in Holland and based on your comments you appear happy there. Culturally speaking, it may be harder for you to appreciate the risks taken by those who left Europe in the hope of a better life. You might even feel it "cowardly", but I think you should re-consider given the history of the US and the people that came here seeking a better life. (I certainly wouldn't call them cowards obviously or suggest that they had a positivist obligation to remain in whatever country they came from).
I appreciate that you as a citizen of Holland have a firm root and feeling for "blood and land" and the corresponding cultural system as a result, but I'm not sure it applies to the American experience fully.(with all due respect to you)
As I read your comment, my mind was saying "Doug Casey" well before I saw your your link. LOL.
DeleteSag
Delete“I submit that the route from >> actual lived medieval religious culture to >> the 20th century drawing board of a theoretical NAP, is a one-way street.”
I am not sure of your meaning here. Are you suggesting that I believe otherwise?
Nick
DeleteThere is no future for liberty or western civilization (but I am being redundant in many ways) in this path. The only places on earth where this tradition and culture have ever existed - and, to varying degrees still exist - are in the west, and perhaps most so in many parts of the US. If it is to be discovered and awakened once again, it will be in places where this tradition is still valued.
It is a path for one generation – the one living it. It is, of course, completely consistent with the NAP. It is also completely consistent with high time preference, and we have no doubt where a high time preference leads.
Whatever the details of the history of European migration to the new world, one cannot compare any of this history with a bunch of rich people moving to a politically impotent enclave in the middle-of-nowhere.
Tell someone who has lived in Argentina for the last 70 years that you are moving there from the US because of the liberty and freedom in the country. While they might understand your cultural reasons given the perception (not undeserved) of the material lifestyle of the US, they will laugh at your political naiveté.
But, from a libertarian standpoint, one is completely free to make such a move. I would certainly not suggest a law to stop them.
BM
DeleteThank you for this gem:
"Whatever the details of the history of European migration to the new world, one cannot compare any of this history with a bunch of rich people moving to a politically impotent enclave in the middle-of-nowhere."
Shouldn't do this too often though, putting in one spot on bingo-sentence what I struggled to convey in half a page ;)
-Sag.
"Whatever the details of the history of European migration to the new world, one cannot compare any of this history with a bunch of rich people moving to a politically impotent enclave in the middle-of-nowhere."
DeleteThat was one example I mentioned, when I mentioned New Hampshire- that was never addressed, when I mentioned I thought the best outcome for the US was a USSR style breakup and the corresponding decentralization that would provide more options, that again was never addressed.
My point being is that no one knows how(or where) more liberty will (or will not) appear.
"There is no future for liberty or western civilization (but I am being redundant in many ways) in this path"
So I'm not going to agree with you or disagree with you. I don't know the future but with all due respect I'm not going to assume you do either.
What I will argue however, is that if we take your argument and plop it into 1700's Europe that "America" might not have existed if everyone accepted your argument as truth.
There was no libertarian "cultural soil" in America prior to European immigration to America so there's problem with your argument.(again, with all due respect)
There were native Americans(Indians) and those leaving Europe as I mentioned before that came here fleeing European government oppression and general volatility while also looking for economic opportunity.
They took massive risks in doing so and then "organically" the "cultural soil" that made America was created so to speak. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest this may happen again someplace else and I don't see anyone arguing against the notion that today America is traveling down a path toward less freedom, not more.
I'm totally on board with path you've explored and written on, regarding the importance of culture in determining liberty and further, how it impacts how the NAP is deduced. But I'm not convinced that this cultural soil can't be reproduced other places, and given the direction the US is moving(another socialist just elected!) it doesn't make sense(to me) to keep one self restricted to this notion that if libertarian minded ideals can't sustain here they can't work anywhere else.
"While they might understand your cultural reasons given the perception (not undeserved) of the material lifestyle of the US, they will laugh at your political naiveté."
As I mentioned prior, I've traveled extensively through Central and South America and speak Spanish.(including Argentina) The "jump" for me would not be as difficult as others but further as I mentioned before in exploring the Doug Casey thing I already decided it wasn't the right move at the time for me personally for several reasons. But I don't know anyone that suggested(including me) that they were going to "flip" Argentina to some libertarian wonderland.(nor would I make that argument)
Casey's community is simply another option. If people want to throw stones at the ideas of explored options, so be it.
It reminds me of the Bitcoin situation to some extent. I'm not a Bitcoin fan, and don't want to take any risks there but I don't begrudge people that do even if I don't agree. There are certainly a lot of people who have become filthy rich by doing so- and while Bitcoin may end of failing, or may be proven to be a "pump and dump", or whatever- I'm not the person to stamp out other people risk taking in an attempt to create a better life.(separate of course from actions that purposely violate the NAP(on a culturally determined basis*smile*))
"But, from a libertarian standpoint, one is completely free to make such a move. I would certainly not suggest a law to stop them."
Geez, I hope no one here suggested that- If they did, I missed it- and that would obviously be close to one of the most un-libertarian things that could occur IMO.
BM
DeleteI'm trying to make the point that using "culture" —e.g. the Church as you suggested— as a filler beyond the NAP won't work.
The NAP doesn't exist in the real world. There's only culture, tradition and so on. To rebuild a relatively free and decentralized society, people have to defend, preserve and reinforce what's left of Western Civilization. I'm sure you'll agree.
But to make my point as clear as possible: the NAP is nowhere in sight here and it doesn't need to be.
If people succeed in defending and restoring Western Civ in decades to come, maybe some day a neo-libertarian theoretician, Murphy Rothfar, would be able to extract something akin to a NAP from our culture.
So my point is that the NAP is derivative, not constitutive, not even with culture as a stopgap or prosthetic, somehow "attached" to it. There's only nation, culture and (religious) tradition.
-Sag.
Nick
DeleteI hope you and I will not get cross-wise because of my exploration; this has happened, unfortunately, with too many others for me to count.
“That was one example I mentioned, when I mentioned New Hampshire- that was never addressed, when I mentioned I thought the best outcome for the US was a USSR style breakup and the corresponding decentralization that would provide more options, that again was never addressed.”
New Hampshire: I think this is a great example. A state small enough (and already with no state income tax). It is interesting that “libertarians” have not moved en masse to this state. I suspect it is because living amongst people who primarily identify as “libertarian” is not the highest value that many libertarians hold. As I have suggested many times: I would rather live in a neighborhood with Pat Buchanan and Walter Williams than in a neighborhood full of (fill in your favorite left-libertarian or libertarians who advocate shooting children for stealing an apple).
A USSR break-up: I also believe this is the best outcome for the US. I will take decentralization wherever it comes. However, this and my idea of the proper culture to sustain liberty are not mutually exclusive. I will suggest that a libertine culture (or a culture of shooting children for stealing apples) and liberty are most certainly mutually exclusive.
“There was no libertarian "cultural soil" in America prior to European immigration to America so there's problem with your argument.”
Nick, I know you can do better than this. They brought the cultural soil with them. What followed was not purely “organic.” So, instead of organic growth, call it an M&A opportunity.
“I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest this may happen again someplace else…”
Sure: find a relatively unpopulated land mass, with a generally good climate and the best navigable rivers in the world along with some of the richest soil for farming anywhere. Oh, and by the way – one not already claimed by a government that will fight to the death against any possibility of secession.
Oh…Once you find such a virgin territory, get all the libertarians (and only libertarians) to move there.
“But I'm not convinced that this cultural soil can't be reproduced other places, and given the direction the US is moving (another socialist just elected!) it doesn't make sense(to me) to keep one self restricted to this notion that if libertarian minded ideals can't sustain here they can't work anywhere else.”
I have all of the weight of recorded history on my side, and you have…what exactly? So, I agree…anything is possible, but not every possibility is plausible. We have been given a roadmap that works – and the only roadmap that ever worked. All I suggest to my fellow libertarians: don’t be blind to this roadmap; respect that liberty was not formed from whole cloth but instead was formed in a specific cultural and religious soil. And respect the order in which this progressed.
“Geez, I hope no one here suggested that- If they did, I missed it…”
Not on this specific topic. But on others, when I have discussed the value of adhering to certain cultural norms it has been suggested that I advocate throwing people in prison for violating such certain cultural norms.
Sag
DeleteWhen I first began this journey of libertarians and culture, I had not given thought to which came first, which was derivative, etc.
I have since, some time ago, made clear that I believe it is the culture (generally, the best of Western Civilization and medieval law) that must come first if we are ever to once again develop and sustain a relatively libertarian society.
This realization has cost me more than a few libertarian "friends."
BM
DeleteSorry for your cost. Perhaps you've also won a few.
Just found the most radical way of stating this (hope I'm not unduly channelling Joe Sobran here):
The NAP needs Christianity, but Christianity doesn't need the NAP.
All in context of course.
;)
-Sag.
"I hope you and I will not get cross-wise because of my exploration; this has happened, unfortunately, with too many others for me to count."
DeleteNot at all. I am confident that you and I can reasonably discuss and for that matter disagree civilly(if that's where we are headed) and still yet remain friends/friendly. Our discussion might even appear "intense", but it should make no difference as I believe we are both intellectually honest(not withstanding subjectivity).
First, let us not lose focus that we are in agreement on the first two paragraphs of your response, I'm going to limit my discussion to those areas in which we are not:
“There was no libertarian "cultural soil" in America prior to European immigration to America so there's problem with your argument.”
"Nick, I know you can do better than this. They brought the cultural soil with them. What followed was not purely “organic.” So, instead of organic growth, call it an M&A opportunity."
There may be some confusion here, but let me clarify how I see it and then you can tell me if we disagree:
The Europeans that came here did so mostly for reasons of economic opportunity and freedom(usually freedom from oppression in a variety of areas). The land they entered in the initial stages(America) had no overarching "culture" in the initial stages/influx of this migration. IMO, the "M&A" you refer to I call a common desire, which then over time "organically" became a culture of "liberty". This transcended to some degree(but not all) some of their cultural roots from their homeland(that is why they left after all).
I have alluded to this earlier when I stated that immigration was a much less complicated topic before the welfare state, and brought up Asian culture within that same context.
What of the above do you disagree with?
Next:
"“I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest this may happen again someplace else…”
Sure: find a relatively unpopulated land mass, with a generally good climate and the best navigable rivers in the world along with some of the richest soil for farming anywhere. Oh, and by the way – one not already claimed by a government that will fight to the death against any possibility of secession."
Let's go back to Argentina for a moment since that's what kicked off this whole discussion:
Casey plopped his community there because the government was already failing and I'm assuming his hope was they'd continue to ignore the community for the most part.
In the context that much of the world is now claimed by governments, I understand your point- but the reason I don't fully agree lies in the aforementioned breakup of the USSR and we can see that the Argentinian government is becoming more and more impotent. I don't accept that the terms of liberty have to happen like they did in early America.
In fact, I'd like you to consider the following question:
Which country is moving more towards liberty and away from socialism: Russia or the United States
I'm sure you know my opinion, but I'd like to know yours.
Your answer to that question either reinforces my argument(with all the corollaries which are too long to address) or is a subjective stumbling block/disagreement between us.
I have won a few, at least according to the comments here. But I have also personally won much more than I have lost. The conversations along this topic have been, perhaps, the most fulfilling conversations held at this blog.
Delete(continued)
Delete"I have all of the weight of recorded history on my side, and you have…what exactly? "
Well, your answer to my Russia question is my historical argument. But going further down this path, the argument that a nation could exist without a king was claimed to have been scoffed at by King George.
I believe that setting limits on what can be done based on historical precedents are intellectually stifling.
"when I have discussed the value of adhering to certain cultural norms it has been suggested that I advocate throwing people in prison for violating such certain cultural norms."
I've never detected a significant difference between us regarding the necessity of cultural norms to help describe the NAP. (lending natural differences in doing so between cultures).
Further, the infamous "shooting a kid over an apple" post years that initially kicked off this whole exploration of culture you've undertaken(which has been very helpful to me) had two initial respondants: Me, saying something was wrong with the post even though I couldn't put my finger on it at the time, and you initially mentioned to the writer that culturally it would never fly(to which I agree).
As of now, the substance of "disagreement" between us appears to be a chicken vs. the egg conundrum.
Sag,
Delete"The NAP needs Christianity, but Christianity doesn't need the NAP."
vs
Christianity needs the NAP but the NAP doesn't need Christianity.
There's the debate, isn't it? Or is it?
I'm not sure that Christianity OR the NAP, "need" each other but I "believe" they can support and defend each other, as can all religions that believe in or accept - individual sovereignty, property rights and non aggression.
Tahn
Tahn, I come down firmly on "NAP needs Christianity" and not vice versa.
DeleteIn fact Christianity should reject the NAP since the NAP would prevent retaliation against religious doctrine. (Making Christianity dependent on the NAP would place the NAP above God.)
Concerning "NAP does not need christianity", well that is the discussion that is raging on this blog. All indications are that NAP won't exists without being preceded by Christianity.
Rein, Thank you so much for your honest and open thoughts on your belief system and why the NAP might hinder them.
DeleteFirst, I agree with you that the Non Aggression Principle would hinder or stop all aggression, even that applied by a state or religion, especially if that "religion" wants to "retaliate" for a supposed violation of religious doctrine, rather than a response to initiated violence.
What you can do is expel all people from your own property that do not share your beliefs. That's a respect for property rights, which is the basis of libertarian philosophy. Perhaps even several property owners might join together with similar and shared beliefs and you can voluntarily include, exclude or expel anyone you choose from your "community". Private Property Rights solves these and other problems
It has long been a history of mankind using religion to ferment discord and then initiate aggression toward others. The NAP, to me, augments the Golden Rule and "Love Thy Neighbor" into a modern principle of ethics and morality applicable to all. This is my understanding of the Highest of the Creators Commandments. They are not "below" God, they are from God, imo. Since this is my 'spiritual belief, others of course might differ.
If there are others who might share your concerns above, I would then posit that the two questions are thus;
Does Christianity need the Commandments of Christ?
vs.
Do the Commandments of God need a "church" called Christian?
I'm certainly not saying you Rein, as we are having a fine philosophical discussion but perhaps the real reason some oppose the NAP, is because they feel either threatened by a rational principle augmenting the Commandments of Love and Respect For Your Neighbors or else they feel a lack of control over others who might act contrary to their personal "doctrine".
Perhaps this needs to be the discussion Rein and thank you for bringing it to the fore.
Tahn
Tahn, "but perhaps the real reason some oppose the NAP, is because they feel either threatened by a rational principle"
DeleteEh, no I do not see that.
I think that most emotional reactions against something come from internal conflicts where the unconscious perceives a clash with its (unconscious) model of reality.
In other words, people don't feel threatened by some rational principle unless it threatens their existence.
If people instinctively reject the NAP, then there must be something that threatens their way of live, their survival.
This also goes the other way: the reason why people accept the NAP is either because they will profit from the NAP in some way, or because they have a brain feature/deficiency that causes a strong preference for rationality.
You may have noticed that most NAP-ers have an above average intelligence. Personally I estimate that an IQ of about 115 (1 sigma above) is the make or break point. Below this you won't encounter many NAP-ers. (Btw I also think that above 130 you won't encounter many NAP-ers either. But this is difficult to observe since there are not many people up there)
Between 115 and 130 people are very confident in their rationalisations. In addition they could be more successful if there were no "stupid rules" dictated by the state, nor any other possibilities by which they would be held responsible for the indirect consequences of their actions. In general they would prefer clarity over subtlety, if the effect is too subtle, lets do away with it.
Lower IQ's (imo) "feel" the failure of reciprocity that is inherent in the NAP, and thus reject it instinctively. It is too clean, too clear cut, and they "know" that this will somehow be used to damage their survival prospects.
Yes they want something from us. They want to "use" the higher IQ individual for the good of the tribe. Partly out of an inner drive to exploit others, partly because we are social creatures that profits from being social.
Sorry to break this off, but there is probably enough in the above already... have to run now...
Hi Tahn,
DeleteI'm deeply humbled by your concise and crystal-clear response to my sometimes rather disjointed chattering here at BM's. But yes, your well-reasoned articulation of the dispute is spot on. Appreciate it.
"as can all religions that believe in or accept - individual sovereignty, property rights and non aggression."
Wow, that suggests quite a few religions besides Christianity. Can you name some?
-Sag.
Nick
DeleteSee my further thoughts here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-chicken-or-egg.html
Sag, I believe there is within the heart of mankind, the desire for peace, freedom from aggression and the enjoyment of his home and property. It is my perception that most major religions encourage that desire as does the Non Aggression Principle and the protection of property rights. Since this is my "belief", it is of course debatable but I believe and there you are.
Delete"None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself."” Muhammad in a Hadith.
"Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." ” Muhammad in The Farewell Sermon.
"So in everything, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the law and the prophets." Jesus- Sermon on the Mount, Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 7:12 NIV
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." - Hillel the Elder; Talmud, Shabbat 31a,.
I have a collection of these from various other cultures if you care for more. The desire and the spirit for freedom lives within us all.
Tahn
Rien,
DeleteThat's some interesting reading. I am barely qualified to even have an opinion on that but lets say there are a few digits on our side, statistically speaking, then having a more complete understanding of the correctness of our philosophy will be to our advantage in explaining the benefits of property rights and the protection of the N.A.P. to those who are waiting and wanting to hear it.
If some people are instinctively rejecting the NAP (which I do not doubt) then it is because we are not framing the argument correctly, imo.
Tahn
@ Tahn-
DeleteQuick note, I really appreciated your commentary you made the other day on parenting and a parents somewhat paradoxical desires/outcomes in doing so. It's a balance I'm very in tune with, as I spent a part of my childhood in low income housing outside of Detroit and it drove me to a degree to do things to make sure as an adult that me or my immediate family would never know such things again. I have very open and honest discussions with my kids about it, especially when I'm seeing them perhaps not "do their best" or I feel like they need nudging to become productive adults and "good people"(BM parlance) in society. I am definitely tough on them when I feel I need to be, but it's because I love them and don't want them falling into the very trap you astutely mentioned.
"They want to "use" the higher IQ individual for the good of the tribe."
YES! This. It is a VERY difficult topic, but I think you hit it right on the head. Some people reject the natural order/hierarchy when they deep down know it's limits their advancement to some degree and perhaps outside of their control.
It's heart breaking and difficult to overcome. I've always told people though that hard work can overcome a lower IQ in free market type society, and I believe it. But, hard work is just that....and pols appeal to the worst aspects of the human condition by pushing redistribution.(a point Chris Rossini made the other day on a Ron Paul video)
Yes, and that same aged libertarian opportunist has called Mother Teresa a fraud. Mother Theresa! How cosmopolitan!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.caseyresearch.com/doug-casey-on-peace-in-the-korean-peninsula/
I've learned to question the integrity of anyone venerated in our modern society. Lincoln, MLK, Mandela, Gandhi... I don't know much about Mother Teresa, but I wouldn't be surprised if Casey was right.
DeleteI think I remember reading that she spoke favorably of some third world dictators, but she may have done that so that she would be granted access into those countries to help those in need.
Gramsci's problem was how the proletariat could seize political power from the bourgeois. By contrast the bourgeois's problem has always been preventing a proletariat revolution. All the apparatus of the state have been devised with this primary concern. The judiciary, the prisons, the schools, the military, the welfare system, the drug warfare project have as their fundamental aim the prevention of a proletariat rebellion. Even Protestant Christianity has gotten in on the act. With the arrival of industrial society - where the worker came in off the field and onto the factory floor he was now in intimate contact with multi-million dollar manufacturing equipment. He was in a position to engage in very costly sabotage. Protestant Christianity was re-worked
ReplyDeletefrom the Catholic preoccupation of the mystery to the very concrete realm of bourgeois morality. The worker was to be indoctrinated by his pastor to have great respect for the factory, the bosses, the owners and their manufacturing equipment and so on. In fact the first factories were supervised by the clergy - in service to the bourgeois. I think this is the context in which Gramsci began to question property and Christianity. Such was the situation a century ago. Yet look at what a paradox is the present. In the election of Donald Trump one could say a Christian proletariat class has seized power from the atheistic bourgeois, the power bloc of Silicon Valley and Wall Street. The situation has become hopelessly tangled up from the point of view of trying to impose on it original Marxist theory and analysis.
BM
ReplyDeleteThank you btw, for providing that Gramsci link. For some reason the article on the LvMI site didn't mention him. The whole thing reads like an elaborate exercise in academical relabelling anyway, while key players have dropped out of the story. Must say that I'm not that fond of the way the author picks a reasonably "successful" political label levelled against leftists and makes it look as if it originated among neo-Marxist historians far removed from ugly day to day politics. Then he admonishes people for overusing the label in political dispute while its "genuine" meaning is otherwise. He comes up with this trick twice, for "cultural Marxism" and also for "social justice".
A few quotes from the LvMI article:
"The idea of cultural Marxism is derived from Marx’s theory of history as it evolved.."
That may very well be, but this idea was never called "cultural Marxism" when the so-called evolution among Marxist historians took place ("evolution," as in the gradual falling apart of Marx' deterministic application of Darwinism to history).
"Whether or not, then, the accurately applied label of “cultural Marxist” should be viewed as a pejorative, depends [..]"
So this is about accurately applying a label? Don't see the point. As a label, the term never was "academically accurate" to begin with and to my knowledge never meant to be. The label wasn't even intended to refer only to Marxists, nor to specifically define a certain branch of Marxist historical theory. From the first paragraph we learn that people shouldn't overuse it and also not in a pejorative way, because that would erode its meaning if the label ever possessed any. A very peculiar admonition. Perhaps the article should have been titled "Against populist pejoratives."
If I'm not mistaken, the term cultural Marxism really began to take hold in the US during the nineties when it meant what it still means today. It was used to loosely describe AND condemn a very influential leftist strategy (cultural subversion).
The term cultural Marxist wasn't around in the first half of the 20th century, when heterodox Marxists and non-Marxist leftists deliberately set out to attack traditional Western culture as a new way to bring about the proletarian revolution, which in spite of Marx' scientific determinism didn't materialize. Apart from its use as a pejorative for labeling leftists who aggressively dislike Western bourgeois culture, it adds nothing for a better understanding of history or historical thought, as it was never supposed to.
The article's only real significance for me is that the author who lays claim to sort of a "dispassionate" historical view of cultural Marxism, somehow manages to leave both Antonio Gramsci and the later Frankfurter Schule eminently unmentioned.
I suspect a fear of being associated with "right-wing populists" might have played a role here.
-Sag.
The article was unsatisfying, but it was the comment by Matt McCaffrey that prompted me to write this post.
DeleteSure, we need a perfect definition with perfect historical traceability and only discussed by individuals with a Ph. D. in Marxist literature before we might discuss this destructive reality.
Yet this destructive reality is a left-libertarian's heaven.
And, as you and others have noted, don't discuss the Frankfurt School (the omission of which McCaffrey applauds) or Gramsci - if for no other reason than to make or break the connection to the movement.
"I suspect a fear of being associated with "right-wing populists" might have played a role here."
I don't know. LvMI has not been shy about its conservative views, e.g. Deist's "Blood and Soil" speech, anything by Hoppe, etc.
BM
Delete"I don't know. LvMI has not been shy about its conservative views, e.g. Deist's "Blood and Soil" speech."
Perhaps the author hasn't received the memo yet.
Yes Mr Deist, that was a great speech. Except for precisely that "Blood and Soil" ending. That was obviously meant to generate some effect. Not sure exactly what the purpose was, still perplexed by that choice of words.
-Sag.
My two cents on that speech, in case you haven't seen it:
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/07/paradoxe-de-la-lumiere-noire.html
BM
DeleteMany thanks for that article. Hadn't seen it, and it made me realize that the "blood and soil" phrase wasn't the only thing that bothered me about this great lecture. But don't worry about me throwing away the whole speech after finding yet another point to dispute, I'll do my best to discriminate between the valuable and questionable parts ;)
So here goes [Mr Deist]:
"I assure you I’m neither interested in nor judgmental toward your personal beliefs or lifestyle preferences — and neither was Murray Rothbard. And of course libertarianism per se has nothing to say about how one lives."
This is where it's beginning to slide for me. Would Deist consider Sharia-Islam or Judeo-Talmudism to be mere "personal beliefs" of no special interest and beyond libertarian judgment?
Also not sure about the claim that Murray Rothbard wasn't interested in — or judgemental of — other peoples beliefs or lifestyle preferences. I think he was to a very large degree in both respects: interested and judgemental.
The last part about "libertarianism per se has nothing to say" sounds nice on paper (libertarianism-per-se's natural habitat), but to me it also seems rather moot when culture and tradition are what makes an actual society tick.
-Sag.
I cannot speak to Deist's personal preferences, but he is correct that libertarianism has nothing to say about one's personal lifestyle preferences - with the implied "as long as these preferences are not acts of aggression."
DeleteAnd herein lies the issue, on which - given his occasional comments here at the blog as well as his views I have read elsewhere - Deist seems to be on the same page as I am: it takes something more than the application of the pure NAP if one wants to move toward and live in a relatively libertarian society (conviviality!).
Here's some Rothbard quotes to go with my previous post.
DeleteRothbard seems very judgemental of the so-called New Protestants who descended from the Puritans (hey.. weren't these poor folks brutally persecuted in old Europe?).
He says:
"After only a few years of agitation, it was clear to these new Protestants that the Kingdom of God on Earth could only be established by government, which was required to bolster the salvation of individuals by stamping out occasions for sin. While the list of sins was unusually extensive, the PMPs (postmillennial pietists) stressed in particular the suppression of Demon Rum, which clouds men's minds to prevent them from achieving salvation; slavery, which prevented the enslaved from achieving such salvation; any activities on the Sabbath except praying or reading the Bible; and any activities of the Anti-Christ in the Vatican, the Pope of Rome and his conscious and dedicated agents who constituted the Catholic Church. The Yankees who particularly embraced this view were an ethno-cultural group descending from the original Puritans of Massachusetts [..]"
In the same article, Rothbard also judges another "lifestyle", judeo-socialism/progressivism in league with -banksterism:
"If the female social reform activists were almost all Yankee, by the late 19th century, Jewish women were beginning to add their leaven to the lump. Of the crucial 1860s cohort, the most important Jewess was Lillian D. Wald (b. 1867). [..] Lillian Wald continued in the dominant tradition by being a lesbian, forming a long-term lesbian relationship with her associate Lavina Dock. Wald, while not wealthy herself, had an uncanny ability to gain financing for Henry Street, including top Jewish financiers such as Jacob Schiff and Mrs. Solomon Loeb of the Wall Street investment-banking firm of Kuhn-Loeb, and Julius Rosenwald, then head of Sears Roebuck. [..] Rounding out the important contingent of socialist-activist Jews were the four Goldmark sisters, Helen, Pauline, Josephine, and Alice."
Point of interest: the total absence in Rothbard's article of any comforting words about "not being judgemental about personal lifestyle".
Perhaps he was being a "thick" libertarian here, I don't know, but I like it. Can't really say that about the "per se" variety. It seems empty.
-Sag.
Sag,
Delete"Not sure exactly what the purpose was, still perplexed by that choice of words [blood and soil]."
I think he was responding to an article by Jeffrey Tucker about libertarian universalism where he used just those words (blood and soil) to denigrate Trump's speech about preserving Western culture. You know Tucker, always trying to tie Trump and his supporters in with fascism.
https://fee.org/articles/the-west-blood-and-soil-or-portable-idea/
"The path forward is to drop the longing for a great and decisive tribal conflict and move toward a system of peace, prosperity, and social harmony for all. It’s not about blood and soil. It’s about the pursuit of happiness that is the right of all people." - Tucker
It sounds pretty, and I wish it were true, but reality has taught me otherwise. Blood and soil, or kin and country, are always going to be important and that is perfectly natural and just.
Yeah. I didn't get the comment applauding the author not mentioning the Frankfurt School. It seems rather important to me.
ReplyDeleteI think the other goal of Cultural Marxism is that not only to sever the cultural link of worker to middle class, but also to just make life enjoyable. Happy people with meaningful lives don't revolt. Dissatisfied, isolated, angry people revolt.
This subject actually links into your articles about individualism and State. I think cultural Marxists have done much to erode intermediary institutions in the US in order to create isolated individuals that lack meaningful community. Then they work to make the State that community.