For those interested in what may be lurking in the quiet cafes upwind from the tear gas fueled street riots in Cairo, I recommend Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution to Brest-Litovsk.
Of course, I’m not suggesting a Bolshevik party is inciting and scheming, but there are certainly other opportunists following a Trotskyesque strategy: biding their time and waiting for the right moment to fill the forthcoming political void.
My hope is that liberty prevails (assuming there is a true liberty component to the revolution). But many others hope and strive for the opposite — for a chance to pilfer for their own benefit.
Note: The audio version of the book is here.
{ 15 comments }
Don’t count on this, Jim. Looting of stores, of the museum and destruction of private property everywhere (according to the news). Not a good sign.
But look who is doing the robbing and wrecking of non-state property:
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/news/eyewitnesses-say-state-sponsoring-vandalism
I guess the government ran out of cash to pay off duty police officers to stir up trouble.
the creature of jekyll island would be good to recommend, too. revolution is a costly business, and bills don’t stop coming in just because gun shots ring out.
http://is.gd/pmu3Xm
Why doesn’t the Mises Institute take advantage of the opportunities taking place in the Middle East right now? (don’t ask me how this would be funded, though… perhaps volunteer?)
I’m sure a shower of LvMI literature would be refreshing to some independent thinkers considering all the other propaganda thats being thrown their way.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find George Soros somehow involved with what’s happening there.
Cui bono is the apposite question.
According Soros himself:
“How did I reach this privileged position? That is a long story and I have already told it in bits and pieces. To sum it up, I believe I combine three qualifications. First, I have developed a conceptual framework that has given me a certain understanding of history, and, in particular, what I call far-from-equilibrium situations; second, I have a set of firm ethical and political beliefs; and third, I have a lot of money. … My goal is to make the world a better place. … What sets me apart is that I am able to do it on a larger scale than most others. … I have to confess that I have a desire to make an impact and it gives me satisfaction to be involved in historical events.” (Soros, “The age of falibility”, PublicAffaits, 2006)
So to answer your question: he does it because he wants to and because he has the power to. Assuming, of course, that he is involved with this, although I have not read or heard anything about it in the press so far.
There are other valueable books on this topic as well: “New Lies for Old” and other by Anatoliy Golitsyn is a good example.
I remember I’ve read in some book by Trotsky that it’s impossible to conduct a revolution in a demcratic state.
And it’s a bit of irony that this man, whose contribution to the establishment of the Soviet state was denounced and than murdered by a Soviet government terrorist.
Too much of the concern expressed about what happens next smacks of “don’t bother treating your syphilis, you’ll just catch AIDS and that’s worse”.
Destruction of dictators may be a never-ending task, but it is always necessary. Or where’s the commitment to freedom?
no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
“Destruction of dictators may be a never-ending task, but it is always necessary.”
Shirley, you don’t mean that, do you? That is a narrow perspective view of the situation, I fear. It supposes the ‘anything would be better than what we have now” argument is sound. But is it?
The quote: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing in the same way and expecting different results” seems to me to apply here. In this case the ‘same way’ is failing to plan for any replacement social structure and expecting spontaneous ‘happily ever after’ to emerge from the wreckage. When has that ever happened?
I am not saying that removing a failed government is not a good thing, I am saying that failing to plan for the aftermath and creating a void is a bad thing. If you have a plan for the future, any plan, then you can modify that plan and try again when failure returns.
Cordially,
Don
maybe the planned and desired result was chaos. it plays well with the islamofascist-threat-to-the-west tune.
Shirley,
Your analysis is simplistic (though well intended).
You assume that :
a) people can’t live free under a dictatorship
b) all dictators are evil
c) replacing a dictator will allow more freedom.
If we look to the history of Afghanistan, the people there enjoyed more liberty and peace when they were governed by a king.
Dagnytg,
Your analysis is faulty too. You begin talking about dictatorships and ends talking about monarchies.
Augusto,
I’ll assume that you are sincere in your comment. Otherwise, I wouldn’t grace you with a reply.
I believe most people reading my comment (including Shirley) would draw an inference (conclusion) from the comment and not debate the semantics.
I didn’t feel like going into a dissertation on the unique details of each type of government. I could have talked about constitutional monarchies or the fact some dictators attain power through a democratic process.
Let’s suffice to say, the essence of a dictatorship and a monarchy are similar-one man rules all.
Note:
If you were to take my previous comment to Shirley a step further, what I am really commenting on is Shirley’s implication that a dictatorship is bad and that whatever replaces is somehow good or better. We could take the opposite approach and say all presidents (democracies) are good and whatever replaces them are bad. Those who come to power are not inclusive to certain types of behavior or outcomes.
Within each type of government (dictatorship, monarchy, democracy etc.) there are constituencies that benefit and those that are punished. So to say that a dictatorship is bad vs. a democracy…I would beg to differ. (We can agree all govt’s are bad.)
In that sense, her presentation was simplistic. A word or title does not imply an outcome. I’ve met some ex-gang members who were straight-up, honest individuals and have met plenty of suit-and-tie types who were scumbags…go figure.
Dagnytg,
Thanks for clarifying your point.
What I had in mind was Hans-Hoppe’s defense of monarchies, and my reading of it is not that he defends monarchies because they mean “one man rules all” as you put it. My undestanding is that Hans-Hoppe’s monarch is not a dictator. Perhaps not because the king doesn’t dream of turning into a dictator, but because he’s enlighted to see that guaranteeing the maximum of freedom to his subjects is in his best interest.
Comments on this entry are closed.