As a reasonably sized democratic government transforms itself by imperceptible increments into a socialist Behemoth, it also increasingly transforms the culture into one more and more sympathetic to socialism. In particular, it teaches previously independent people to think of themselves as victims whose only possible defense against predation lies in the existence of a socialist Behemoth. The socialist Behemoth wants the self-image of the average citizen to be changed from one in which pride is taken in autonomy to one in which autonomy is no longer even considered possible. The citizen is taught to think of himself as always under attack by the forces of “big money” and that his only defense lies in “big government.” Obviously, this change is very useful to a behemoth seeking to grow yet larger in size and power.
But even as the Behemoth works to alter the way in which the citizen thinks of himself, the submerged self-image that exists latently within every democratic government surfaces slowly and also by imperceptible degrees. Slowly, the Behemoth becomes itself.
Originally understood by the citizenry and by itself as an instrument, a servant, of the productive people of a country, providing essential large-scale services such as roads and national defense, it comes to a new understanding of itself as it grows. In this new conception, it is no longer a servant and certainly not of the productive citizenry. The population is divided in this new conception into an ever larger supplicant population and an ever more concentrated wealth producing one. The Behemoth is no longer a servant to either one of these populations, it is a master with respect to both. With the former, it is a benevolent and paternal master; with respect to the latter, it is a harsh, vigilant, suspicious, and punitive master. The former population is understood as helpless, pathetic, and childlike. Just like children, the people of this population are never held accountable for anything they do; just like children, they need to be tended to; just like children, they are the ones for whom everything is done.
The productive members of the population, on the other hand, are seen very differently.
On the original socialist notion, all the forces of production were to be owned by the state as whole and managed by the state. This political-economic model proved to be a catastrophic failure in its Stalinist, Maoist, and Hitlerian manifestations. It has further proved a massive failure in its current North Korean manifestation. The Europeans could not bring themselves to abandon socialism, but they recognized reluctantly that socialism simply led to famine and waste. Thus, they conceived of a “third way,” a way that lay between free market capitalism and centrally controlled socialism. But what has to be seen is the peculiar understanding that the Behemoth has of the free-market sector whose existence it is tolerating.
In effect, it is treated not the way in which a free market government treats its citizenry, that is, as public servant who respects the goals and objectives of its masters, the people; in effect, it is treated as a “cash cow.”
I don’t know the origin of that phrase, but it could better be altered in this context to “blood cow,” since the productive sector of a “third way” economy is understood in much the same way that the Masai tribesmen understand the cattle they keep for their blood. The Masai regularly bleed their cattle without killing them – they want them to continue producing their blood, which the Masai drink. The Masai do not think of themselves as their cattle’s servants, they do not exist for the sake of the cattle – rather, the cattle exist for the sake of the Masai.
Similarly, the Behemoth is also a blood-sucker; it tolerates business and market activity so that something at least in its purview is producing and not merely consuming. Yet, the Behemoth both privately and publicly loathes the private sector and uses propaganda on the mass media and in the schools and universities to disseminate negative narratives of successful enterprise. Every effort is made to make the general public think of business, particularly Big business, as evil, rather than as the engine that makes government largesse possible. In particular, the official narratives find ways to “explain” how the wealthier citizens and businesses “owe” their wealth to the failed cultures and sub-cultures. The narratives “explain” how their failures were and are “not their fault,” but the fault of the evil, evil, evil predators. Often the predators are given an ethnic or religious identity, since the failures easily segue into that kind of hatred. Jews have historically been the evil doers responsible for the failures of endangered social species, but not always. Business is given much the same kind of treatment as the Indian sub-culture had within Idi Amin’s
There is, however, a dangerous and unpredictable additional process that should be marked. While the Behemoth demonizes business, Big Business protects itself by becoming a virtual national entity, by becoming a multi-national corporation. A multi-national corporation has little stake in the citizenries of countries other than in their role as consumers. Multi-national corporations are fictitious countries that have no real national locations, that, in a sense, “float” above actual, geographically based national entities. Because of their special status, these new entries into the community of nations really don’t give a damn whether the Behemoth demonizes them or not. The same is not true, however, of the far more important “small business” sector that does not have the luxury of floating above the fray. Small business within the Behemoth world is treated not unlike the way that Korean grocery store owners are treated within “African-American” neighborhoods. Though they supply a need that the locals do not or cannot supply themselves, that the locals are happy to use, the owners are despised, bullied, harassed, and mugged. That is how the Behemoth treats small business.
The socialist Behemoth thus "keeps" two herds, one a large, grazing, consuming herd whose existence is seen as an end in itself, and another, a busy, creative, productive herd whose existence is tolerated for its utility.
For those who still have a lingering nostalgia for personal autonomy, I can only say: beware the Behemoth!
Interesting as always and speaks to some of the discussions we've had.
ReplyDeleteRegarding autonomy, what's interesting about the Left is that they treat this word much the same as they treat other classically liberal terms such as "freedom", "equality", etc. They completely reinvent their meanings from being an inherent quality to a final destination that only the State can take us to. So it is not that they reject the notion of autonomy, they rather reject the notion that we are blessed with it and can exert it ab initio.
Regarding the Third Way, what is important to keep in mind is that the Third Way was initially not a creature of socialism, but rather of capitalism, that was then taken over by the Socialists as the surest and best way to reach a Socialist society (in other words, the Socialists became "conservative" in that they realized that the eventual Marxist state would have to be brought about gradually and must include the market).
But the progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century and later Keynes could hardly be said to have a Marxist/socialist background for the most part. They believed very strongly in the foundations of capitalist republican government, but they were "liberal" in the sense that they believed a more efficient CAPITALIST system could be engineered. To a point, they were right. Going after the Trusts makes sense - it increases the overall competition. Even the ultra-conservative Hayek wrote that he was in favour of government action so long as that action was designed to promote competition, and hist protege, Milton Friedman seems to have been as well (I believe Friedman supported bank bail-outs). Keynes was motivated, not by sentiments of equality, but rather by a desire to maximize employment and thus GDP.
The question among the Right is therefore an empirical one - how much intervention serves the overall capitalist structure and at what point does such intervention begin to hinder competition. Just as we acknowledge the government needs to build roads and hire cops to maintain a rule of law so that capitalism may flourish, an argument could be made in good faith that some degree of working conditions needs to be imposed as well in order to maintain industrial peace (the British and the Canadians were generally more in favour of this in the early 20th century than were the Americans, not because of their predisposition to socialism but more so because of their predisposition to Order). Ford went so far as to argue that by paying his workers high wages was good, as they would have enough money to buy his cars.
The difference between the Capitalists and the Socialists then, is that the former treats gov't intervention as an empirical exercise while the latter treats it purely as a moral exercise. By the 1970's much of Keynes' theories were discredited; but at the same time, much of what the Progressives had originally advocated had become acceptable. Thus, a capitalist conservative in the modern day does not necessarily want to abolish all forms of public medicine or public education, or certain other regulations; but just the same, he recognizes that, empirically, many liberal capitalist propositions simply turned out to be false. The Socialist does not care about these matters, since the programs are justified in and of themselves as being inherently moral and necessary.
The empirical/moral distinction can be seen very nicely in the New Deal - and it is at that point that we can see Socialist elements truly beginning to take over the Democratic Party. The first New Deal was very much a "get people back to work" program, aimed at saving capitalism and maximizing GDP. The Second New Deal had many more elements of "rights" involved - Roosevelt announced the Second Bill of Rights that included freedom from want, hunger, etc. - what are now referred to by the Left as "social and economic rights". I think that while Socialism has been a party of the American polity since the late 19th century, it was at this point that it truly infected the mainstream.
Thanks, A.G., for your thoughtful and informed comments. I have little argument with them, just a few interspersed remarks.
ReplyDeleteRegarding autonomy, what's interesting about the Left is that they treat this word much the same as they treat other classically liberal terms such as "freedom", "equality", etc. …
[[Yes, the Left changes the meanings of words. Things are not what they are, they are what we call them.]]
Regarding the Third Way, what is important to keep in mind is that the Third Way was initially not a creature of socialism, but rather of capitalism, that was then taken over by the Socialists as the surest and best way to reach a Socialist society ...
[[My point exactly about the Third Way. European socialism could not escape the facts of communistic failures, had to accept market activity, however reluctantly, but treated (and treats) it as a blood-cow.]]
But the progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century and later Keynes could hardly be said to have a Marxist/socialist background for the most part. … Keynes was motivated, not by sentiments of equality, but rather by a desire to maximize employment and thus GDP.
[[You are quite right that free market capitalists adopted limitations on laissez faire that had to be implemented through government action. And I have no problem with this idea, though once again, the objective should always be to make these actions as limited as possible (tentative, in fact). My objection is not to government action intended to refine and improve free market operation, but to entire agencies, huge expensive enterprises, whose function it is to redistribute income to non-productive inhabitants of the system.]]
The question among the Right is therefore an empirical one - how much intervention serves the overall capitalist structure and at what point does such intervention begin to hinder competition.
[[Quite right.]]
Just as we acknowledge the government needs to build roads and hire cops to maintain a rule of law so that capitalism may flourish, an argument could be made in good faith that some degree of working conditions needs to be imposed as well in order to maintain industrial peace …
[[Yup.]]
The difference between the Capitalists and the Socialists then, is that the former treats gov't intervention as an empirical exercise while the latter treats it purely as a moral exercise.
[[I go further. The power-leadership within the latter wants government intervention so as to increase the number of its dependents and to increase its size and powers. We always have the sentimental ideologues, the simple tools of the power players, on the one hand, and their manipulators, the hard-core Leftie thugs, on the other.]]
By the 1970's much of Keynes' theories were discredited; but at the same time, much of what the Progressives had originally advocated had become acceptable. ... The Socialist does not care about these matters, since the programs are justified in and of themselves as being inherently moral and necessary.
[[Once again, there are the ideological Lefties, the “useful idiots,” as Lenin may have called them, and there are the realpolitik thugs. For the latter, it’s all about taking power and control for the central government. "Too good a crisis to waste."]]
The empirical/moral distinction can be seen very nicely in the New Deal - and it is at that point that we can see Socialist elements truly beginning to take over the Democratic Party. ... I think that while Socialism has been a party of the American polity since the late 19th century, it was at this point that it truly infected the mainstream.
[[My point concerning the Third Way is that there is a difference between a free-market system that pragmatically or compassionately recognizes the benefits of being kind to children, the aged, the crippled, unskilled workers, assembly-line workers, etc., on the one hand, and a socialist system in which the free market exists only for the sake of that population.]]
I think your last point is particularly good. Also the one about massive agencies whose main existence is to redistribute wealth. I think we have nicely defined the difference between a compassionate conservative on the one hand and a Marxist/Lefist (what today most people just refer to as "liberal") on the other.
ReplyDeleteAs to the part of useful idiots vs. power seekers, I would argue that the majority of Marxists are not in fact power seekers eager to control - just as many, I would wager, are true believers who are merely blind to all realities. And among those who want power, I doubt most want power to "control" dependents; most simply want power for themselves and use the idea of "equality" as a means of gaining "superiority". Black power was all about this, as is modern feminism.
But there is also another population, and perhaps they form the majority (or at least a sizable minority). They are the ones who use Socialism as a means to compensate for their own real or perceived personal inadequacies, and use wealth transfers (I don't like the term 'redistribution', as it implies that there was an initial distribution rather than creation and production) as a substitution for personal moral choices. For example, the ex-communist, Stephen Spender admitted "I was driven by a sense of social and personal guilt." Arthur Koestler echoed these sentiments: "I projected a personal predicament onto the structure of society at large." It is this population, I believe, who are the truly 'religious', because they have given up belief in most other things.