I decided to read For a New Liberty. What did I discover? Reading this text, http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p263, I refer to pp.269-290.
I come upon Rothbard using Marxist terminology: so-called "exploitation". And Guerilla warfare, human bombs, etc. is a libertarian idea? And Rothbard adds, "from a mixture of theoretical and practical grounds of their own, the Soviets arrived early at what libertarians consider to be the only proper and principled foreign policy"? What was that?! And this discussion goes on and on, all in a decidedly pro-communist direction.
Interventionism is interventionism; and Roosevelt, Johnson, and et al contributed nothing except interventionism to the United States domestic and foreign policy (and Roosevelt even hushed up the discovery of what the Soviets did at Katyn).
However, saying the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets were relatively less-interventionist, and all the guerilla fractions in the world (who are avowed Socialists and name buildings and streets today after "Martyr" bandits who shoot civilians and blow up buses, and kill "exploiting capitalist Westerners") are relatively more Libertarian than Western Socialists is an insult to Libertarians. I can see why Reisman criticized this book in his 1990 textbook.
What happened in fact?
The Soviets gobbled up republics (i.e. Russia has about half the population of the Soviet Union; the rest are in republics), and engaged in propaganda (leading to total nonsense in Germany and Austria, and the United States).
The German Liberals didn't exist. The Historical School, which was basically socialist became national socialist, or left the country and became Soviet sympathizers ("you've got to pick sides" as said Stalin and Hitler, as if these were the two sides). Mises showed that the Germans were more thoroughly interventionist than the Soviets: the Soviets fixed production of goods, and the Nazis fixed the production of goods and people.
What few people know is that the Japanese Liberals got purged by socialists and the farm-war-anti-commerce-ascetic-brand of socialists (the military) by 1910-1920. Liberals of the Bastiat school, such as Tsuda, Nishi, Shigenobu, et al, were gone by then, and the remainder became emulators of Germany. Liberalism only remained in private universities. The countryside swayed from Marxism to Nationalism and the Ascetics won. Even Shigenobu was forced to make political concessions to bushido-ascetics and protectionist socialists during his prime-ministership back at the turn of the century. And it went downhill from there (as opposed to the 1870-1900 years).
The Middle East and Africa became highly protectionist after the collapse of the Colonial powers. They emulated the protectionism of the former colonial powers after independence (read Ghannian economist George Ayittey's textbook Indigenous African Institutions and Africa in Chaos, for a great deal of particular information, for instance in the 50 or so African territories). They became highly interventionism and Marxist oriented (maxims like "profit is the Western concept; any man who engages in commerce without paying prohibitive taxes is to be shot" were popular in Africa and the Middle-East). (Also a good book to read, on how the so-called "East" fell down economically relative to the so-called "West" 1600-1900, even if only for the bibliography is David Landes' The Wealth and Poverty of Nations; although Landes references Schumpeterian and Abbott Usher interpretation, not necessarily Austrian theory, he is at least a good historian.)
The US responded in an interventionist manner; true. But to tell a Russian, a Chinese, and a Japanese, that their respective country was less interventionist...
Why did Rothbard ditch a truly marginalist (antiviolence) understanding in favor of decidedly Marxist nonsense whenever he talked about Foreign Policy and the so-called "West"? Was he just angered by United States involvement in Vietnam in the 1970's to write such nonsense? I find this very strange.
(Just so you know, we the Soviet intellectuals were all personally of the opinion that US backing of anticommunists was better nothing, i.e. than letting the "our" communist allies take over. Even Vysotsky wrote a couple of rather seditious songs about China and another about Egypt, our "allies", back then. There is nothing to praise the US response, but the Soviet backing of modern butchers like Nasser was nothing to brag about and had nothing peaceful about it at all.)
It's not only ETA. A large portion of guerrilla movements fund their programs through extortion, or they are funded by governments which tax (such as the PLO). Guerrilla can sometimes used interchangeable with mafias. My point was simply to raise the issue. I think that there seems to be a belief that many guerrilla groups are somehow pure, and they fight against the tyranny of the State—in most cases, I believe, this is not true, they operate similar to a State in the areas they can threaten with the use of force and most of their time their objective is to set up a new State under their own leadership (i.e. ETA, FARC, Iraqi insurgents, Afghan insurgents, et cetera).
That said, I am not arguing that this somehow makes it the State justified, or anything within that nature. My only concern was the following:
And Guerilla warfare, human bombs, etc. is a libertarian idea?
Then:
Guerilla warfare is good in the sense that it does not necessitate taxation and doesn't involve drafts.
Guerrilla groups, most of the time, do necessitate taxation (whether they are being funded by third party governments or they are extorting local populations and businesses), and many times do involve drafts (and not only that, but use force to disincentivize freedom of will, or the ability for non-guerrilla fighters to do as they please [like barter with Israelis, in the case of many Palestinians who are found dead for working with the Israelis]).
For the most part, guerrilla forces (at least in the modern sense) are not libertarian in nature.
thelion:And Guerilla warfare, human bombs, etc. is a libertarian idea?
thelion:"from a mixture of theoretical and practical grounds of their own, the Soviets arrived early at what libertarians consider to be the only proper and principled foreign policy"? What was that?!
A general framework of non-interventionist foreign policy. Can you name a country that the Soviet Union invaded apart from the push towards Germany during the second world war? I can only think of Finland and Afghanistan.
thelion:all the guerilla fractions in the world (who are avowed Socialists and name buildings and streets today after "Martyr" bandits who shoot civilians and blow up buses, and kill "exploiting capitalist Westerners"
You did not understand the statement he was making. By saying guerilla warfare is close to libertarianism does not infer that blowing up innocents is libertarian. The point he was making is that guerillas are usually domestic fighters and it is in their interest and their tactics to regard innocent life as something to consider while standing armies can just indiscriminately bomb without a care.
thelion:The German Liberals didn't exist
What time period are you referring to exactly?
thelion:What few people know is that the Japanese Liberals got purged by socialists and the farm-war-anti-commerce-ascetic-brand of socialists (the military) by 1910-1920. Liberals of the Bastiat school, such as Tsuda, Nishi, Shigenobu, et al, were gone by then, and the remainder became emulators of Germany.
Ehh I would say until the 1918-1930's. Purges really started near the end of the 20's and into the 30's. Specifically after the Peace Preservation Act.
thelion:The Middle East and Africa became highly protectionist after the collapse of the Colonial powers. They emulated the protectionism of the former colonial powers after independence (read Ghannian economist George Ayittey's textbook Indigenous African Institutions and Africa in Chaos, for a great deal of particular information, for instance in the 50 or so African territories). They became highly interventionism and Marxist oriented (maxims like "profit is the Western concept; any man who engages in commerce without paying prohibitive taxes is to be shot" were popular in Africa and the Middle-East). (Also a good book to read, on how the so-called "East" fell down economically relative to the so-called "West" 1600-1900, even if only for the bibliography is David Landes' The Wealth and Poverty of Nations; although Landes references Schumpeterian and Abbott Usher interpretation, not necessarily Austrian theory, he is at least a good historian.)
I don't understand what this has to do with Soviet foreign policy.
thelion:But to tell a Russian, a Chinese, and a Japanese, that their respective country was less interventionist...
Again, they were.
thelion:Why did Rothbard ditch a truly marginalist (antiviolence) understanding in favor of decidedly Marxist nonsense whenever he talked about Foreign Policy and the so-called "West"?
Well these countries were less interventionist in terms of foreign policy relative to the United States.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
You do understand that Guerillas for the most part are unable to successfully fight foreign armies?
They are de facto organized to target civilians (and they are not funded domestically: they collect from the civilian population with threat of force.This is worse than taxes, because they target specific groups of people more than others for money.
When US snipers were in Iraq, each has about a 20-30 kills. The insurgents just run when they see actual military (they asked for snipers and special forces to be recalled in negotiations), and only engage when they have massive numerical superiority. Otherwise, they target civilians (because they don't shoot back, you see). Compare the number military killed by insurgents and civilians killed.
Most insurgents use area of effect weapons that kill more civilians than military, and they are proud of it. Bandits did not disappear in the Middle ages; they just call themselves guerillas today. As Condillac remarked, people called merchants greedy because they have more ways of getting rich: but is it that the people themselves are less rich because less greedy, or less rich because they have fewer ways of getting rich beside that fact. To put a modern spin on that: Of course, bandits don't tax anybody: but that is not to their credit. If they could they would (i.e. Hamas and the Talibs while in power); but so far they can't in most places.
Similarly, the fact that Soviet military forces were deteriorating and they only invaded the republics they already had conquered earlier does not make their foreign policy any more liberal than the United States, which had more money to pump into the military because they were richer. Poverty does not make morally right. Only Marxists claim it does.
It is impossible to call purposely violent behavior more or less liberal. Its not liberal and can never be more or less. Rothbard seems to have erred in joining the marxists in moral relativism; in fact, there is no such thing.
J.S. Mill made concession to Marxists too; but Austrians don't praise that. Why praise Rothbard's foray into that realm? After all, I don't see how condoning any violence except defense of property can be liberal, and that is after all the theme in his actually pioneering work.
---------------------------
Digression:
As far as German liberals, they were much fewer than in Japan, and had much less effect: in Japan, Bastiat was translated within 10 years of opening the country; Germany was "open" for centuries.
As for liberals, the Germans prior 1945, showed their taste for liberalism in their reception of Gossen. After he was rediscovered, they still did not accept marginalism, except for about two editors of an economics journal (the name of the journal escape my mind right now).
(I talked about the former colonial territories to make a point that its not only Western governments that can be interventionist: If Rothbard is saying anyone can be more interventionist in foreign policy than the failed African States, leaving aside the Germans, then he cannot be more wrong even by that statement alone.)
When it comes down to guerrilla warfare specifically I could align this with militias, and I would like to use the Revolutionary War as a vague example.
Guerrilla armies are voluntary, and are generally united around a common framework. If their is an invading army in their country a militia might come together to combat the invading army. This is a non-Statist action that does not require taxation (since their is no State authority involved with the group to enfore taxation for them) and is voluntary.
When it comes to civilian kills vs. military, the guerrilla's are more worried about having less civilian fatalities since that is their fellow citizens.
When it comes to contemporary warfare, who's more less likely to have civilian fatalities; a heavily armed military with explosives with a high rate of collateral and human damage, or a group of lightly armed militiamen who are targeting specifically the invading army or armies?
Laughing Man: thelion:What few people know is that the Japanese Liberals got purged by socialists and the farm-war-anti-commerce-ascetic-brand of socialists (the military) by 1910-1920. Liberals of the Bastiat school, such as Tsuda, Nishi, Shigenobu, et al, were gone by then, and the remainder became emulators of Germany. Ehh I would say until the 1918-1930's. Purges really started near the end of the 20's and into the 30's. Specifically after the Peace Preservation Act.
Let us not forget the terrible crimes committed by Cheka in eliminating political opponents of the new Soviet regime.
Bert:When it comes down to guerrilla warfare specifically I could align this with militias, and I would like to use the Revolutionary War as a vague example.
Militias are almost always utilized in conventional warfare. Also, the Revolutionary War was very much a conventional war, with the most important battles (e.g. Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Charleston, and Yorktown) all being fought in the tactical style of previous wars between European powers.
Bert:Guerrilla armies are voluntary
Not congruent with historical experience in Africa
Bert:and are generally united around a common framework.
All armies are unified around a common framework.
Bert:When it comes to civilian kills vs. military, the guerrilla's are more worried about having less civilian fatalities since that is their fellow citizens.
This statement is not congruent with historical experience - guerrilla warfare is far more likely to involve the targeting of civilians than conventional.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
I come upon Rothbard using Marxist terminology:
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
maybe true for other example but the first claimed example is that 'exploited' is Marxist Terminology. ?? it only has Marxian connotations when the context is an investigation into trade under laissez-faire....
doesn't the state exploit innocents in its territory, isn't that standard libertarianism?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
thelion:You do understand that Guerillas for the most part are unable to successfully fight foreign armies?
Guerilla fighting is most definitely the most effective tactic of fighting a superior force. If the standing army does nothing then the attacks continue in scope and propagandizes its success thereby recruiting more hesitant individuals. If the standing army starts killing randomly and without care then the local populace becomes more apt to join the guerrilla fighters. Guerilla tactics have been used on both world superpowers past and present [ Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Russians, Vietcong in Vietnam against France & the United States ] Both times it was extremely successful.
thelion:They are de facto organized to target civilians (and they are not funded domestically: they collect from the civilian population with threat of force.This is worse than taxes, because they target specific groups of people more than others for money.
Are we talking about standing armies?
thelion:When US snipers were in Iraq, each has about a 20-30 kills. The insurgents just run when they see actual military (they asked for snipers and special forces to be recalled in negotiations), and only engage when they have massive numerical superiority. Otherwise, they target civilians (because they don't shoot back, you see). Compare the number military killed by insurgents and civilians killed.
Firstly, a sniper is only as effective as this ability to discern who is and isn't an insurgent. I'm sure for every kill there are numerous unknown insurgents who just slip by in a crowd. Secondly, yes they run. That is the whole point of guerrilla tactics. Third, you are neglecting the premise that there are religious sentiments between Shiia and Sunni so they just don't target random citizens.
thelion:Most insurgents use area of effect weapons that kill more civilians than military, and they are proud of it.
Again religious turmoil. Military soldiers are still being killed at checkpoints and the like.
thelion:Similarly, the fact that Soviet military forces were deteriorating and they only invaded the republics they already had conquered earlier does not make their foreign policy any more liberal than the United States, which had more money to pump into the military because they were richer. Poverty does not make morally right. Only Marxists claim it does.
By saying that Soviet Russia had a more conservative foreign policy then the United States does not then infer that we congratulate communists for being communists. You are saying something along the lines of this. Say there is a 4% tax cut in Congress. By saying, 'wow a 4% tax cut would be great' does not infer that I support taxation in the first place. You need to gain perspective on what we are saying here.
thelion:It is impossible to call purposely violent behavior more or less liberal. Its not liberal and can never be more or less. Rothbard seems to have erred in joining the marxists in moral relativism; in fact, there is no such thing.
That is really the cru de gra. Rothbard was anything but a moral relativist. He was an absolutist. He in fact thought that Mises' greatest weakness was moral relativism.
thelion:Why praise Rothbard's foray into that realm? After all, I don't see how condoning any violence except defense of property can be liberal, and that is after all the theme in his actually pioneering work.
And Rothbard never did condone violence. Establishing degrees and variations in foreign policy in relation to imperialism does not mean you a fortori accept imperialism as moral.
Juan: He was pandering to the 'new left' or something. Sad but true.
Well everyone who calls themselves a capitalist is pandering to Marxism since Marx invented the word.
no he didn't. it was in use. at most he popularised it. The first use of the word "capitalism" in English is by novelist Thackeray in 1854. The French used the word capitaliste before then
Laughing Man: Guerilla warfare is good in the sense that it does not necessitate taxation and doesn't involve drafts.
I don't know how Vietnamese guerilla forces funded themselves, but it's not correct to apply this to all guerilla warfare. I remember reading an article on LRC about ETA, and how ETA was justified in fighting the Spanish State. ETA does not fund itself through voluntary funding, and I suspect that most guerilla movements don't. They fund themselves through blackmail and extortion.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:I don't know how Vietnamese guerilla forces funded themselves, but it's not correct to apply this to all guerilla warfare. I remember reading an article on LRC about ETA, and how ETA was justified in fighting the Spanish State. ETA does not fund itself through voluntary funding, and I suspect that most guerilla movements don't. They fund themselves through blackmail and extortion.
Firstly, nothing wrong with blackmail. Extortion is wrong because it involves the threat of force. Obviously the ETA could be more effective in presenting its message without harming the very people they are supposedly trying to help.
How Murray Rothbard Single-Handedly Brought Down the Saigon Government with Malice Aforethought by Joseph R. Stromberg
A corollary lesson of the collapse, then, is the long-run impossibility for an imperialist-dominated regime to survive, when opposed by guerrilla warfare backed by the great majority of the population. And this despite the enormous advantage in firepower and in modern weaponry that the imperialist power, and its puppets, initially enjoy.
...
The process by which these states [South Vietnam and Cambodia] have crumpled vindicates once again the insights of the theorists of mass guerrilla warfare, from libertarians such as Charles Lee in the late 18th century to the elaborations of modern Communist theoreticians… that, after a slow, patient protracted struggle, in which the guerrilla armies (backed by the populace) whittle and wear down the massively superior fire power of the State armies (generally backed by other, imperial governments), the final blow occurs in which the State dissolves and disintegrates with remarkable speed. [7]
....
And this is how even a mighty and despotic State gets toppled. This is how ideas effect social and political change – through movements, through alternative visions, through struggle. And this is a change that should gladden the hearts of libertarians, for it shows that a Leviathan State, even a particularly brutal and dictatorial one, can be vanquished….
Making precisely the same point as in the two earlier essays, Rothbard asks his readers to “notice what I am not saying. I am not claiming that the Khomeini republic will be particularly libertarian.” This was not to be expected, nor was it the point of his essay. “Libertarian rejoicing has nothing at all to do with whatever State replaces the shah. It celebrates the fact that a powerful, dictatorial, seemingly impregnable State can be and has been overthrown by the force of an idea.” [28]