History

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

thelion — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 06:36:54 GMT

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

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.

This. I agree entirely.

Some people have responded with war statistics, trying to show how relatively more(!?) libertarian guerilla fractions are. War statistics are, however, often quite full of contradictions and nonsense, and often quite intentionally.

For instance, see Richard Landes's comments on the subject:

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/02/05/statistics-facts-opinions-and-casualties-of-war-reflections-of-a-statistician/

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/12/14/leveling-the-playing-field-an-order-of-ten-both-ways/

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

Caley McKibbin — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 00:34:36 GMT

"Guerilla warfare" is basically just Sun Tzu tactics.

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

Marko — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:29:53 GMT

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.

US snipers in Iraq mainly killed non-combatants. They had permission and instructions to kill anyone carrying a shovel, or a bag. Or anyone handling a cell phone near the troops. Or being out after a curfew. The US military has in Iraq killed some 20,000 guerrilas but over 400,000 non-combatants (mainly vie the use of air power).

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

Marko — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:42:27 GMT

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

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.

They also perpetrate revolutionary terror. For example they will harm family members of people in the security forces.

But I think that such acts are not required. I think they are ultimately counter-productive and that those guerrilas who win out, generally do so because they do not engage in terror and coercion to the same extent that the government or the occupier does.

On the contrary those guerrilas who are too violent will be soundly defeated. For example note the backlash against the Salafi fanatics in Iraq.

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

Marko — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:28:16 GMT

As Hoppe explained (but many others figured on their own as well) it is the internally liberal countries which end up pursuing the most externally illiberal policies. Because they have the means to pursue imperial "glory" where internally illiberal countries do not. I don`t see what is controversial here, during the Cold War the USA was the much more aggressive power and killed a couple of times more people in third countries than the USSR did. (Plus Rothbard was writting after Korea and Vietnam but before Afghanistan so the contrast was even greater.)

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

thelion — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:49:44 GMT

That objection does not follow.

If people say they are fighting for "communism," when they behave "venting upon and getting rid of that neighbor with the turned up nose", then their motive is "venting upon and getting rid of that neighbor with the turned up nose". The rest is wordplay. That person I hypothesized has the idea of "getting rid of that neighbor with the turned up nose", not "communism." "Communism" refers to an entirely different thing: it does not involve, so far as it is the motive, "getting rid of that neighbor with the turned up nose", else the motive is not communism.

We cannot separate motive from action according to the motive. We can spot, in this manner, misleading terminology .

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

nirgrahamUK — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:19:31 GMT

thelion:
People are not moved by ideas, but by self-interest.

people must be understood through the lense of teleology, that is by considering their ideas, motives, values, choices...

their self-interest can not be separated from the idea that they have about what is in their self-interest.

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

thelion — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:57:08 GMT

Let us consider the phrase: A State is brought down by an idea. Is this a valid statement?

A State brought down by what idea? Do you really think communists are moved by ideas? Liberals are moved by defense of property. Communists are moved by want of pillage. Pillage is not an idea. Rothbard does not say it is, but then says "Communism" is the motive of some of these revolutions.

But "Its got nothing to do with reading and words" is a popular saying in Russia even in Russia today. Brezhnev even bragged how he never read Karl Marx.

The framework works on a local level, often, yes; but on purely personal relationships.

People are not moved by ideas, but by self-interest. The vicious ideas like communism are as Mises wrote many times, backed purely by personal considerations off the page. Guerilla warfare is aimed, first and foremost at killing opponents within a populace. Partisans is a different term, if that is what Rothbard wanted to say (but didn't say). Partisans are not guerillas in the modern sense of that word because the guerillas are an actual fraction aiming at control against anyone, whereas partisans are aiming to recover their own property: partisans don't engage civilians to any large extent.

The problem is that Rothbard did mean in that instance Guerillas, not partisans, because he was talking unconditionally about any group which fights a state without a formal army. Often, that does not preclude attacking civilians.

He did not put in the conditional that this group have backing other than because it wants to steal property belonging to other people and if it targets civilians. Is it really surprising that dreams of robbery can inspire a populace, especially which has not capitalistic basis previously, to overthrow a state? This motive is often the same as that in any totalitarian state hierarchy: so it cannot be said to be the success of people against the state. It is wannabe-bandits fighting real-bandits.

African socialist states, as Ayittey had pointed out in those books I listed, provide the most obvious examples in the last forty years (all in the Soviet method, according to Ayittey). The "guerillas" who hide amongst the populace an organized group that wants to replace the former guerilla bandit who is now the head of state. But two sided robbery cannot continue forever, and we see a new guerilla force rising up as Rothbard predicted. But it is to be understood not in the sense that he meant it. When a populace rises up to fight a state, it is not always to "fight the state"; it is often a populace rising up to vent their anger at general chaos, and no army can withstand that because the army draws from society and the society has just disintegrated. But this is nothing amazing, and follows from logic. This is not a society rising up of its own accord to defeat a superior-armed oppressor.This is an end of that society.

Only when society rises up in the sense of defending property, like the American revolutionaries, can it defeat a superior-armed state army and fit the bill of defeating the state. In order to defeat anyone you have to live. A so-called "society" where guerillas target civilians is no longer a living society. It ceased being a society when division of labour was dropped in favour of violence within the society. In Iraq, do you really think it is just religious violence? Religious violence does not cause people to say: "I like your house. Thank god you are not my brother. Now, face the wall." Then the house is claimed by the attacker.)

Only a liberal uprising can be considered the "success" of a society against a state. Everything else is not an uprising; it is the death frenzy of an unhappy group of people. If the state collapses, in the former case, then it is something of interest. If the state collapses, in the latter case, and is reestablished by the biggest bandit, then it is nothing surprising or noteworthy.

(Most of this position comes from Etienne Balazs great essays on Peasant Revolutions in China over the period of all the dynasties, which fits the pattern like a glove: over-taxation, or oppression, and that with a crumbling infrastructure causes a death frenzy among the populace. The state is destroyed, but so is society. Often the pillage commences under a banner redistribution of property [which as a motive predates Western Communism being introduced to China]. No one bothers to make sense of anything. Then a bandit comes along and starts the next dynasty. The last is as he was often called in China, "emperor" Mao Zedong. I suggest everyone to read Chinese Civilization and Bureaucracy.)

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

Conza88 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:18:22 GMT

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 18^th 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]

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:58:54 GMT

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.

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

Andrew Cain — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:22:41 GMT

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.

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 05:50:04 GMT

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.

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 05:14:49 GMT

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

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

Andrew Cain — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 05:08:41 GMT

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.

Re: Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

Andrew Cain — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 05:07:05 GMT

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.