Rousseau is merely imagining what it is convenient to imagine; and, viewed in the cold light of reason, his account of the life of primitive man at times borders on the grotesque and ludicrous. FULL ARTICLE by Alexander Gray
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/10697/rousseaus-form-of-socialism/
Rousseau’s Form of Socialism
Previous post: Rothbard’s Last Triumph, Part 2
Next post: The Afghan Disaster
{ 27 comments }
I seem to recall that Paul Johnson’s book ‘Intellectuals’ devoted a whole chapter to Rosseau. And the distance between Rosseaus own actions and words is a colossal gulf. Clealry a case of not even remotely walking the socialist talk.
Johnson, while not exactly steeped in Austrian thinking ( or any rigorous economic thought, come to that – he was schooled in the Jesuit tradition and trained as an historian), came to a conclusion in that book which will resonate strongly with any Misesian: All Intellectuals, who come up with Grand Schemes for organising society, are
a) Overweeningly arrogant
b) Hypocritical ( invariably exempt themselves form the rules they would impose on everyone else),
c) Wrong, and (therefore)
d) Positively dangerous.
WHat I took away form that book is that Johnson is a latent or instinctive Austrian, but doesn’t necessarily know it. This is reflected in his drift from the Left in the 1950s to a (British) conservatism by the 1970s.
Don’t anarcho-libertarians have a Grand Scheme for [re-]organizing society? Granted, they don’t want to be in charge, which is laudable (and would make your item b) not apply), and don’t really want anybody to be in charge, but they do want a fundamental restructuring of society. How is that not a Grand Scheme?
“In French, the words ‘organize’ and ‘organizer’ were unknown before the end of the eighteenth century or the beginning of the nineteenth century. With regard to the term ‘organize,’ Balzac observed ‘This is a new-fangled Napoleonic term. This means you alone are the dictator and you deal with the individual as the builder deals with stones.’” – Ludwig von Mises
This does not answer the question: Anarcho-libertarianism would be a fundamental *restructuring* of society. How is that not a Grand Scheme?
Russ,
I wasn’t answering, exactly; I was waiting for Mushindo because I’m sure he can handle your not-exactly-on-topic questions. I guess I’ll go now.
Would a minarchist society not be a fundamental restructuring of society from the corporatist hell-hole we now suffer in? (some far more than others, naturally) I find your line quite strange. You’re not a Luddite (I’m pretty sure). Under your broad definition anti-Luddites are wild-eyed revolutionaries.
I actually agree with you in part though: universal anarcho-libertarian theorists ARE ridiculous….BUT….completely harmless! You’re like a nut storming into a Star Trek convention to set things straight with some different strain of Trekkies. I find you funnier than them (more compromised): hence the counter attacks.
Scheme: “program of action”, “ORGANIZED configuration.” The Rousseaus of the world intend to have their plans enforced. They see people just as Balzac described. As soon as you find an anarcho-libertarian who thinks this way and wants to enforce his dreams on the world, you let me know, and I’ll be on your side (not that you’d care, ha ha).
“As for our other maladies — the rough-and-tumble of a panel practitioner’s life — Rousseau indicts society for its sins, and argues that most of our misfortunes are our own work, and that practically all could have been avoided, if we had adhered to the ‘simple, uniforme, et solitaire’ manner of life prescribed by Nature. As will be seen presently, it is the word solitaire that is here the most significant. The history of human diseases is best obtained by tracing the development of civil society.”
This is the “flip” to Rousseau’s socialism. It’s why Hayek (in “Individualism: True and False”) observed that “Burke … after he had first attacked Rousseau for his extreme ‘individualism,’ later attacked him for his extreme collectivism….” This dualism is his legacy to the Left:
“Theory and history demonstrate that at one pole of the opposition to free enterprise looms the total domination of society by the State; at the other, the total obliteration of society as such…. State despotism or social disintegration, 1984 or Robinson Crusoe — this is the choice that the critics of capitalism offer as a more just alternative to the freedom and cooperation of the market.”
From here.
“How is that not a Grand Scheme?”
Because there is no Grand Schemer.
Good reference by Mushindo on Johnson’s _Intellectuals_. To boot, any book that illustrates Chomsky as the buffoon he is, must have value.
“Chomsky as the buffoon he is”
Of related interest:
“Who Would Be a Free Man? The Political Economy of Noam Chomsky”
Franklin,
So there is no Grand Schemer. So what? There is still a scheme; the total re-structuring of society onto a path never before seen on Earth, based on a rationalistic philosophy that thinks it has the One True Political Philosophy, and can prove it. This makes the Rothbardian anarcho-libertarian very similar to Johnson’s socialists; on three out of four counts, I’d say.
mpolzkill wrote:
“Would a minarchist society not be a fundamental restructuring of society from the corporatist hell-hole we now suffer in?”
No. We would still have a government as arbiter of last resort. It would be much different in scale, though, obviously.
“I actually agree with you in part though: universal anarcho-libertarian theorists ARE ridiculous….BUT….completely harmless!”
Not so. Anarcho-libertarians are divisive; they divert people from a plan that might actually work; and they make libertarianism look nutty to most people. I think it does real harm to the cause. And of course, I believe that if anarcho-libertarianism were realized, there would be severe “unintended consequences” that would make the world less libertarian than minarchism in the long run.
“Scheme: “program of action”, “ORGANIZED configuration.”"
A scheme is just a plan or way of doing things. The free market could be considered a scheme for allocating resources, even though it is not organized from the top down, much less forced.
Russ, what’s your point? Every political ideology, by definition, proscribes ideas of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for society.
Seems Russ is playing with words.
If a scheme is “just…a way of doing things”, what action isn’t a scheme?
I suppose you consider the ways in which you feed your family, earn money, pay bills, cook food, put on your clothes, brush your teeth, etc. to be schemes.
Yeah, forget the dictionary Russ: there’s propagandizing to do. “Scheme” has no negative connotations, it just means a way of doing something. Bull. The free market is not a scheme. My how you stretch!
I’m going to stretch just as hard as Russ has to here. Russ, embodying these four points of Johnson’s:
a) overweening arrogance:
“a plan that might actually work”
As his supposed trump card he constantly says that there has never really been anarchy. There has never been anything like minarchy. (Please don’t say again how this government was smaller once in those Halcyon months between the completion of the genocide of the Aboriginal Indians (preceded by the brutal subjugation of the South and the foundation of the corporatist model) and when they embarked on their Empire building, proper.
Actually, there is anarchy everywhere: people going along, producing, while ignoring the state. The fact that so many live most of their lives doing what they do without his magic men’s assistance is our main saving grace. He will say his magic men make it all possible. An overweening assumption. They do it with his parasites on their backs.
A government that matches his fantasy (supposedly, who knows if he really is a minarchist) is what never was and never will be.
There is anarchy between the two main gangs in America, the Dems and Repubs, thank god, another saving grace for us. There is also no final arbiter between the gangsters called States: Anarchy, thank god again. I’d bet Russ would like to remedy that behind a certain “Indispensable State”
He constantly, arrogantly pronounces what is impossible to prove: that he, in his superior wisdom has determined it is possible to shrink his system to the minimum and that life without his system is a pipe dream.
b) Hypocritical
“Divisive” says the guy who obsessively sticks the same discordant note in every post that is remotely near his pet subject.
I get along swimmingly with many minarchists. Ron Paul is a hero of mine. Lysander Spooner is a hero of both mine and Ron Paul. Ron Paul never finds occasion to attack anarchists. There is no good need.
c) Wrong
See above.
d) Dangerous
“they make libertarianism look nutty to most people”
I don’t believe I have yet seen Russ attack the U.S. government. I only see him attack anarchists and lefties who use the same arguments that he does, only for things he doesn’t approve of. (I have never heard him mention Ron Paul; you have any problems with Dr. Paul, Russ?)
Now that righties are out of power so many of them suddenly act as if they are great friends of liberty. All they want is lots of compromise. Lots of realism. Realism on what all? An insane war to the death against Islam? That’s exactly what you’d have to compromise on to attract most conservatives. What would moving to the right make us look like? What would it make us?
No thanks on making us respectable, Russ. No thanks, we don’t need any of your conservative electoral magic.
* Aboriginal Americans
I see while I was typing, Russ was on another forum defending the massive atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is the “action” and the unprecedented in scale and rapaciousness “pre-emptive war” (well, maybe the Nazis in the Ukraine was close to the same thing, but’s that’s not fair to the Nazis). Hadn’t seen him do so yet. Knew Mr. Libertarian would at some point.
What’s your name “Russ”? Do you have any work on the internet you can link us to? You probably wish to remain anonymous though; spending day and night attacking all these obviously crazy anarchists.
Russ said: ‘Don’t anarcho-libertarians have a Grand Scheme for [re-]organizing society? Granted, they don’t want to be in charge, which is laudable (and would make your item b) not apply), and don’t really want anybody to be in charge, but they do want a fundamental restructuring of society. How is that not a Grand Scheme?’.
This reminds me of that old chestnut:
Philosopher 1: ‘There are no absolutes’
Philosopher 2: ‘Aha! You’ve just declared an absolute’.
which just isnt very helpful. Besides, you misrepresent the libertarian position: ‘reorganizing’ implies replacing one state of organisation with another one, and thats not what libertarians want.
the thing about Grand Schemes is that they inescapably entail some people telling other people what to do, backed by the threat of force in the event of non-compliance.
the libertarian prescription is very simply the absence of any imposed Grand Scheme. Its a policy of having no policy b eyond a universal rule of law based on the individual’s right to choose to do as he pleases to the maximum extent consistent with the same right for others.
Such institutional organisation that may emerge in response to such a central policy vacuum is not a Grand Scheme, because it is built on a foundation of voluntary co-operation between consenting individuals, rather than forcibly herding large numbers of people into any particular behavioural direction . Bottom-up rather than top-down, if you like.
To use a medical analogy, the (austro-) libertarian prescription is not a ‘prescription’ in the active sense. It is a call to cease medicating the patient, based on a considerable and logically-consistent body of thought which demonstrates that the medication itself is responsible for the disease.
Russ, anarcho-libertarianism isn’t about “a” scheme at all but about not having a scheme – and so, there is no “Grand Scheme”. At most you can identify plans (plural) to do with unwinding what currently goes on, but not about providing a replacement.
Mushindo,
Yes, I knew you would have an excellent comment.
“Bottom-up rather than top-down, if you like”
I like: horizontal, organic and voluntary vs vertical, artificial and command.
The antithesis of what Russ is trying so hard to pin on us. (Perhaps Russ is a Hegelian, ha ha.)
“Perhaps Russ is a Hegelian”
Ummmm, no.
About “scheme”: You have a vision of a complete *re-structuring* of society; something fundamentally different than the way things are currently done. If that’s not a scheme, I don’t know what is. If you like the word “vision” rather than “scheme”, whatever. The word used is not important. What is important is that both socialists and anarcho-libertarians want the complete *re-structuring* of society. That is what makes them similar, and potentially dangerous.
Another way of looking at the word “scheme”. It doesn’t have to imply a top-down plan. It can also imply an organizing principle. Ancap definitely has an organizing principle; aggression is never justified.
Ummmm, “ha ha” means: joke. A joke like: how you’re still trying to force this lame point.
Words aren’t important now. They sure are to propagandists. We want less crime. Call that what you will.
Russ,
The figure head of the gang you say must exist and that, well not you, someone or some group of unspecified men will get a hold of and possibly minimize in the future said this today: “The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied–and our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred.”
Do you spend any time attacking these ACTUALLY dangerous ACTUAL scheming lunatics? I haven’t seen it. A little bit on more free medical services for the proles, that was it. First you need to rid this den of anarchists and then you’re on your way?
We’re you not going to answer my Ron Paul question?
* Were
[blast]
mpolzkill wrote:
“Do you spend any time attacking these ACTUALLY dangerous ACTUAL scheming lunatics?”
There are more than enough attack dogs here already. Like I’ve said before, I see my role here as that of gadfly against the doctrinaire ideologists I see here, and making sure that lurkers know that not all libertarians are anarchist fringe dwellers.
“We’re you not going to answer my Ron Paul question?”
I didn’t see it before. Usually, I start reading a post of yours, then get to a gratuitous attack calling me a Nazi baby-raper or something, then I just skim from there on. So I missed it.
I don’t have a problem with Ron Paul as a congress-creature (although I’m horribly afraid he and his Audit the Fed initiative are going to be played by Barney Frank). After reading his “The Revolution: A Manfesto”, I wouldn’t vote for him for President, though. After all, he stated in the book that he would never, under any circumstance, use torture to defend American citizens from terrorism. Of course, being the blood-thirsty sociopath that I am, that just won’t do.
“Now that righties are out of power so many of them suddenly act as if they are great friends of liberty. All they want is lots of compromise. Lots of realism. Realism on what all? An insane war to the death against Islam? That’s exactly what you’d have to compromise on to attract most conservatives. What would moving to the right make us look like? What would it make us?”
Since you brought up an “insane war to the death against Islam”, what would you have the government do (assuming the government’s not going away anytime soon) to try to prevent terrorism here in the US?
My preferred solution, believe it or not, would be to get the military out of Iraq and Afghanistan as fast as is possible, without leaving the citizens to be killed by insurgents. The fact is, whether I like it that the US military is there or not, they are. If we just bail as soon as is humanly possible, and let lots of innocent civilians get killed in civil wars that the US military unfortunately made possible, I think that would be a bad thing. Then I would prefer beefed up “human intelligence” (HUMINT) and increased infiltration of terrorist groups both domestic and foreign. In other words, instead of fighting the kind of war we know how to fight, let’s adapt and learn how to fight the kind of war that targets our actual enemies, and doesn’t create more.
Cute stuff. Always flattering yourself, Nazis had purpose and style [joke]. Good luck cleaning up the fringe of the fringe. Once your mission is accomplished, Repub-lite should become the wave of the future. Then minarchy, here we come.
Damn, thought of this too late. I’ll do a re-take:
No one ever compared you to a Nazi. Always flattering yourself; you’re not Yul Brynner in “The Ten Commandments”, you’re Edward G. Robinson.
harharhar
Don’t have any papers anywhere, do you. Gadfly, that’s humble and accurate at least. You buzz around and attack real writers who are doing real work for liberty, and that’s it.
“HUMINT” = water-boarding in your own neighbourhood. choose your wishes carefully, they may be visited on you. isn’t the patriot act bad enough?
newson,
I’m reading Voegelin on Hitler right now and what you said to Russ just popped into my head.
“In [Gustav Meyrink's 'The German Bourgeois' Enchanted Horn'] there is a study entitled ‘Tschitrakarna, the Refined Camel,’ where the refined camel gets involved with ordered legal procedures with the gangster animals in a due process of law. Because of that it is destroyed and then torn apart; then the raven, who is one of these gangster animals, cries, ‘Yoohoo, silly ass!’ you should remember this ‘yoohoo, silly ass!’ each time you think about the upright citizens who agreed with the Enabling Law for Hitler. That was Meyrink.
newson,
I’m reading Voegelin on Hitler right now and what you said to Russ just popped into my head. Eric Voegelin:
In [Gustav Meyrink's "The German Bourgeois" Enchanted Horn'] there is a study entitled “Tschitrakarna, the Refined Camel,” where the refined camel gets involved with ordered legal procedures with the gangster animals in a due process of law. Because of that it is destroyed and then torn apart; then the raven, who is one of these gangster animals, cries, “Yoohoo, silly ass!” You should remember this “yoohoo, silly ass!” each time you think about the upright citizens who agreed with the Enabling Law for Hitler. That was Meyrink.
[Thank you, kind moderator, if you're out there]
Comments on this entry are closed.