A commenter, who might otherwise buy a moral case for making war on communist regimes, has pointed out that the local citizens should do their ‘job’ and overthrow the nasty regimes. The argument seems to be that the locals should do it, if they are in favour of freedom and democracy, and thus demonstrate that they are worthy of our support. Such suggestion can only be made with certain assumptions. As a self-appointed champion of the individual facing a totalitarian state, I shall respond to them.
It has been said, and I believe it to be the case, that the people of a nation are only as free as they want to be. The Cubans have long had the power to overthrow Castro, but have simply chosen to live with him and the poverty he brings.
With respect, that is utter nonsense. The assumption here is that ‘the people’ are a collective entity with the ability to act unanimously. In reality, it is a large number of individuals against whom monopolised and institutionalised violence is used on a regular basis. After a couple of decades of propaganda and control of information by the state, the system needs only an occassional tweaking and a careful monitoring of the non-conformist elements of the castrated society.
Same with the Iraqis. As vile a creature as Saddam is, he would be out of power if the Iraqis were willing to make sacrifices for rebellion. Sure, the terror tactics used by Saddam (chopping up bodies and delivering them to homes in body bags, killing his own relatives, etc.) serve to scare the populace into submission. However, the power and the choice is there. What is needed is enough patriots to give their blood to plant the seed that will grow into tree of liberty.
No, the power is not there, the choice is not there. You can have as many Iraqis as possible, individually knowing that Saddam is a vile creature and yet not be able or ready to fight him. Unless there is an organised resistance, it is impossible for a ‘nation’ to ‘free itself’ from tyranny. The more brutal a regime is, the more difficult is to dislodge it. You need a critical mass of individuals each one of them willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. The more brutal a regime, the more it has to loose and the more determined and vicious those supporting it are.
The Iranians seem to be realizing this. There are actually true Iranian patriots willing to die for freedom. The roots of liberty are spreading within the hearts and souls of each individual Iranian. This is the best way to overthrow tyrants – from the ground up, not the top down.
Hmm, if the roots of liberty are spreading within the hearts and souls of each individual Iranian, then I’d better move to Iran because it is the only country where this is happening. Don’t you think that Iranian resistance has something to do with the Western life style and freedoms it offers, such as mixed-sex parties and alcohol and other goodies that the islamic kill-joys don’t want young Iranians to have. The professor, who may be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, is doing so in a situation that puts the government at the disadvantage. Why has the situation arisen in the first place? Because the Iranian regime doesn’t want to look illiberal to the western world. And so we have the external influence again, getting in the way of the neat image of ground-up liberty blossoming in the heart of each Iranian patriot…
You can point to Germany and Japan all you want, but the tradition of freedom was already prevalent in their cultures prior to hijacking by fascists.
Yes, I will point to Germany where there was the tradition of freedom as much as any other European country at the time. But the Germans did not overthrow fascism and the internal opposition to Hitler had been squashed ruthlessly well before the war. Japan on the other hand, had no tradition of freedom before fascism, hence the need for 7-year US ‘presence’ in the country. The Soviet Union did not collapse because of its citizens rising against their oppressors. The country had never had a tradition of freedom, they went straight from serfdom to er, communism… Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, on the other hand, had been democracies before communism. Dissident movements existed and none of the old-style communists resurfaced in post-Cold War governments like in Russia.
…suppose the US makes war with N. Korea and Iraq, and overthrows the communists and Saddam. Then what? Will that magically create freedom? Will the people recognize individual natural rights that lead to a spontaneous societal order? Will they realize the benefits that a respect for property rights brings?
Yes, overthrowing the communists and Saddam will create freedom. No magic, just logic. If you take away the root of oppression, you get freedom. The question is what the people will do with it. If you expect nothing less than recognition of individual natural rights and a spontaneous societal order, that seems rather harsh. I don’t think it’s fair on the poor oppressed population to hold them to a standard much higher than that reached by the assorted lefties polluting the Western societies. One thing you can be sure of, though, is that their will love property rights…
Or will the N. Koreans simply create another socialist government, like the former Soviet republics have chosen to join the socialist EU?
Are you saying that the socialism of the EU is comparable to the Stalinist totalitarianism of the North Koreans?! No one can accuse Samizdata.net to be pro-EU but such suggestion is preposterous. All statisms are not equal. Some are bad and some are even worse.
And will the Iraqis see the US not as the great liberator that saved them from oppression, but as the Great Satan, much like the ungrateful Kuwaitis see the US today?
I don’t see why it is such a tragedy that Kuwaitis are ungrateful. Perhaps they realised that the US ‘liberation’ was not out of love of Kuwait but because it was in the US national interest. Nothing wrong with either.
Can armies and government, the very wellspring of statism, achieve a top-down conception of liberty?
Why should they? I certainly don’t expect them to! Their role is to protect their citizens and remove tyranny if it threatens their liberty. They are to uphold the framework within which freedom can flourish. To remove tyranny from top down means just that, it does not mean an imposition of freedom. I advocate the use of the army and the state to do the former and reserve the latter for the individual.
As a point of detail, I’m not sure that it is right to say that prior to WW2
“Germany where there was the tradition of freedom as much as any other European country at the time.”
See Hayek in the Road to Serfdom for a compelling argument to the contrary (i.e. that the cult of collectivism was probably more advanced in late 19th c and early 20th c Germany than anywhere else)
More generally, this debate (or variants of it) – viz – “when should a libertarian support the use of State force against other States?” – seems to be cropping up a lot around here (I’ve posted on the question more than once myself).
I don’t think it is just because the subject is topical. On most other topical issues (e.g. gun control), there seems to be a broad consensus amongst Libertarians. Yet when it comes to foreign policy/war, we seem to be all over the place.
I wonder why that is. Is it because we are uncomfortable with the underlying premises (i.e. the very existence of powerful armed States) and so have difficulty grappling with the issues? Or is it that libertarian theory in this area is under-developed? Or what?
(or maybe I just haven’t read the right books!)
I think a BIG PROBLEM is the abdication by the Congress of the United States of its office in being the branch of government which declares war.
And of course, the constitution of the United States has the admirable characteristic of telling the government what it cannot do rather than placing its imprimatur on what is or is not proper conduct in the state.
One thing the United States cannot do is wage “war” without a declaration thereof. It shouldn’t be impossible for elected representatives of the people to decide upon whom we shall wage war.
Until they do, what am I supposed to think? Hooray?
My scattered two cents. This kind of unthinking aversion or support to one policy or another comes from years of truisms being bandied about. Like “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. These snippets are an obscene simplicification of history, but makes for an excellent stereotype. Stereotypes are essential abstractions to organize thoughts, but are useful only in a certain context. So with the issue of revolution, the “How, when and why” they happen are complicated issues which unfortunately few social scientists seem to be interested in. (Warning: snide comment ahead) Unfortunely, they are too busy trying to understand how western stereotypes of orientals has impacted lingerie design.
Grant… eh?
I have no problem with -you- helping the people of Iraq, North Korea, or anywhere else. Pledge your entire fortune if you like. I don’t care. Just two rules:
1. Do not force me pay for it in any way. No new taxes. No increase in taxes. No shuffling around of existing tax money. All your money is from willing participants.
2. Do not bring retribution into my home. If you screw up, you’re responsible. Not me. Not my government.
In short, put YOUR money where your mouth is.
It appears to me that this article does not differentiate between authoritarian or socialist regimes whose elites have recognised a need for legitimacy (both internal and external) and dictatorships who have converted their states into prisons for their inhabitants. In contemporary international relations, China and Zimbabwe would fall into one category, North Korea into the other.
Once states require a level of legitimation for their continued existence, they are in a cyclical state of reform and repression that can last until they fall back into one state or forward into another. At the moment most appear to fall forward into semi-democratic or democratic forms.
On another point, it is also inaccurate to confuse well-developed civil societies with democracies and state that this explains the level of dissent in communist countries. For example, Poland and Hungary were autocracies before the second world war, not democracies, unlike Czechoslovakia. Russia abolished serfdom in 1861 and the Stolypin reforms had introduced a certain level of property rights undermining the village commune, the mir, before the revolution. By 1911, Russia had a limited franchise assembly and, without the stress of the war, it is unlikely that Bolshevism would ever have been adopted. These historical inaccuracies tend to undermine the arguments that you put forward.
I also think that you malign the ideals of dissidents and reformers in autocracies and repressive states by stating that materialism is the primary motive for such movements.
“Don’t you think that Iranian resistance has something to do with the Western life style and freedoms it offers, such as mixed-sex parties and alcohol and other goodies that the islamic kill-joys don’t want young Iranians to have. ”
I would expect less cynicism in a website that often states you should argue for the courage of your convictions.
Don’t you think that Iranians actually understand freedom in all its forms, both political and economic, and are demonstrating for the right to enjoy these, like the freedom to criticise Islam, not just mixed sex parties?
Once states require a level of legitimation for their continued existence, they are in a cyclical state of reform and repression that can last until they fall back into one state or forward into another. At the moment most appear to fall forward into semi-democratic or democratic forms.
Please give some examples. I do not understand your theory of the state oscillating between oppression and reform eventually falling into one or the other. You treat the state as a body independent of the society. The state often surpresses and damages the society, but also the state’s functioning, its particular face and propaganda is often determined by the social (meta)context.
Yes, Czechoslovakia might have had a bit more developed parliamentary democracy but the civil societies in Hungary and Poland and Czechoslovakia were not that different in terms of their political maturity, having shared a similar political and historical context for some time.
Russia on the other hand had been fairly isolated and despite the formal abolition of serfdom in 1861, the civil society had not advanced much by 1917. There was no tradition of civil disobedience and dissent, if you don’t count the anarchist revolutionaries – Lenin’s brother Alexej was executed as one. That is why the communist ‘vision’ could be imposed from above by a relatively small group, the Bolsheviks, as the civil society capable of resistance or any alternative was almost non-existent, the Mensheviks having been quickly eliminated. And yes, the pressures of war did not help, and yes Russia could have followed a democratic path but my point was that the Russian society the communists took hold of had nothing to fall back on in resisting them then and in the future.
I also think that you malign the ideals of dissidents and reformers in autocracies and repressive states by stating that materialism is the primary motive for such movements.
This is inaccurate, nowhere in this or my previous post I say that materialism is the primary motive for a dissident movement! How could it be when in resisting the state you are giving up even the little it may allow you to hord during your pitiful existence under its watchful eye. What I know though is that you do not get the population or the society as a whole to resist the state because of ideals and self-less convictions. This is because most people living under oppressive regimes do not necessarily clash with them. Uniformity is what is required and if you adhere to it, you are left in a relative peace. To me, it was a nightmare and I actively joined a dissident movement at a tender age of 13, when I started to realise that I have no future and no hope of one.
Lastly, I am not being cynical about the Iranians but having taken part in one student resistance movement that actually changed a regime, the Velvet Revolution, I know something of motivation behind it. Why is it cynical to ascribe the Iranian students/dissidents the desire to enjoy life to in the way they want?! I thought that was the purpose of freedom they are fighting for? I have grown weary of lofty ideals, having seen most of them abused for oppression and violence.
Pretty good reply, and fine article, Gabriel. Although surely you must be aware that Slovakia’s Pres. Shuster was, in fact, a high ranking commie; and the prior pres Kovac had been a commie, and most popular politician, former PM Meciar had been a commie… (lots of commies in power in SK)
I totally agree with your “lack of power” of dissidents, and the populace, in facing dictators, especially those with no respect for human rights, in practice. Until the 89 fall of the Berlin wall, it’s hard to see examples of successful revolutions against dictators unless the dictator had been propped up by foreigners before (eg Shah of Iran).
It’s in fact amazing that Gorbachev allowed the breakup of the Warsaw pact … so I’m living in Slovakia and watching the new history.
With respect, that is utter nonsense. The assumption here is that ‘the people’ are a collective entity with the ability to act unanimously. In reality, it is a large number of individuals against whom monopolised and institutionalised violence is used on a regular basis. After a couple of decades of propaganda and control of information by the state, the system needs only an occassional tweaking and a careful monitoring of the non-conformist elements of the castrated society.
Not really. I never referred to “the people” as a collective. “People” is plural for person. Thus it means many individuals. I stand by my statement that the many individuals in Cuba do indeed have the power to overthrow Castro. These many individuals, by doing nothing, have acquiesced. It is indeed the individual’s “job” to defend himself. That is the fundamental exercise of right that is essential to life and liberty.
No, the power is not there, the choice is not there. You can have as many Iraqis as possible, individually knowing that Saddam is a vile creature and yet not be able or ready to fight him. Unless there is an organised resistance, it is impossible for a ‘nation’ to ‘free itself’ from tyranny. The more brutal a regime is, the more difficult is to dislodge it. You need a critical mass of individuals each one of them willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. The more brutal a regime, the more it has to loose and the more determined and vicious those supporting it are.
I’ll agree with you here. It is not easy. Not easy at all.
Hmm, if the roots of liberty are spreading within the hearts and souls of each individual Iranian, then I’d better move to Iran because it is the only country where this is happening. Don’t you think that Iranian resistance has something to do with the Western life style and freedoms it offers, such as mixed-sex parties and alcohol and other goodies that the islamic kill-joys don’t want young Iranians to have.
Yes indeed. The many individuals of Iranians have a distinct culture from those of their Arab neighbors. It is they who have the will to exercise even these limited freedoms.
The professor, who may be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, is doing so in a situation that puts the government at the disadvantage. Why has the situation arisen in the first place? Because the Iranian regime doesn’t want to look illiberal to the western world. And so we have the external influence again, getting in the way of the neat image of ground-up liberty blossoming in the heart of each Iranian patriot…
Baloney. It is the clerics’ fear that the protests will turn into a full-blown revolution that keeps them from executing the professor. It is not fear of Bush admonishing them.
The Soviet Union did not collapse because of its citizens rising against their oppressors. The country had never had a tradition of freedom, they went straight from serfdom to er, communism… Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, on the other hand, had been democracies before communism. Dissident movements existed and none of the old-style communists resurfaced in post-Cold War governments like in Russia.
I certainly do not regard democracy as any sort of freedom. Democracy is more oppressive than monarchy. The only thing that separates monarchy from dictatorship is the will of the many individuals to resist the power grab of the fat guy in power.
Yes, overthrowing the communists and Saddam will create freedom. No magic, just logic. If you take away the root of oppression, you get freedom. The question is what the people will do with it. If you expect nothing less than recognition of individual natural rights and a spontaneous societal order, that seems rather harsh. I don’t think it’s fair on the poor oppressed population to hold them to a standard much higher than that reached by the assorted lefties polluting the Western societies. One thing you can be sure of, though, is that their will love property rights…
The root of oppression isn’t Saddam. It really isn’t. It is the virus of the mind that has embedded itself into the many individuals of Iraq that their will is not their own. Will removing Saddam cure that virus? I don’t know, but it is certainly not a given.
Why should they? I certainly don’t expect them to! Their role is to protect their citizens and remove tyranny if it threatens their liberty. They are to uphold the framework within which freedom can flourish. To remove tyranny from top down means just that, it does not mean an imposition of freedom. I advocate the use of the army and the state to do the former and reserve the latter for the individual.
Well, your conclusion I can somewhat agree with, with the reservation that the less evil state will grow stronger in the process.