Tom Palmer on the late, Marxist philosopher, G.A. Cohen, who died a few days ago:
Millions had to die so that Cohen and his rich friends could enjoy “a non-capitalist mental space in which to think about socialism”. Words almost fail me. But not entirely. He should have spent his life begging forgiveness from all of the people who suffered from his pro-Soviet (he spent a good bit of his youth as a Soviet propagandist, which was essentially a family enterprise) and pro-Communist activities. He was no different than any old National Socialist who might have regretted that National Socialism wasn’t nationally socialist enough, but who enjoyed the “mental space” it created to construct fantasies of an ideal life.
They say it is wrong to speak ill of the dead, or at least, recently deceased. But given the enormity of the evil associated with Soviet Russia – the millions killed, starved to death and generally immiserated – that I consider it to be a moral failing not to call out those who chose to look the other way, or make excuses, for what that regime represented, and what it did. G.A. Cohen was more honest that some Marxists/egalitarians in at least recognising the force of the classical liberal critique of his views; he did, for example, appreciate that the Lockean idea of Man as a “self owner” and the associated right to pursue the acquisition of property was a serious challenge to collectivism. But in the end he brushed it aside. I did not realise that Cohen was an apologist for the Soviet Empire in the way that Palmer describes. That came as quite a shock.
By the way, G.A. Cohen’s arguments are nicely and civilly dissected by Jan Narveson’s splendid book, The Libertarian Idea. And Tom Palmer’s own book looks also to be well worth checking out.
I have never subscribed to that notion.
Its is best to speak ill of those already dead, they can’t talk back.
I completely agree with Perry. People who are evil (or who do evil things) should be held to account whether living or dead. When Ted Kennedy (finally!) shuffles off this mortal coil I shall speak quite as rudely about him as I have during his life.
When Budd Schulberg (screenwriter of On the Waterfront) died the other day, it didn’t take long for somebody on one of the movie fora I frequent to speak ill of him for speaking out against the Hollywood Communists.
You should see some of the nasty comments about John Hughes’ movies because he (and the movies) didn’t have the correct political view.
Agree with everyone here exponentially. In my view one can’t say ENOUGH bad things about these people who acted/are acting as “enablers” for the seduction of mankind by one of the most wrong-headed, thoroughly evil ideas in the history of man and responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.
And be not dissuaded from such criticism by good manners. The left has NEVER let such things deter their side–as we may see by their reaction to Schulberg and Kazan (when awarded a life-time achievement Oscar) and the use of Union goons to beat up Town-Hall meeting protesters as just happened in St. Louis. No, shout it from the roof-tops; these people and the ideas they defend/represent are
simply bad, bad ju ju.
Unless I have misread and misunderstood the various articles regarding psychiatry I have read over the past few years, another of the allegedly scientific theorists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Sigmund Freud, has been largely discredited by the physiological and pharmaceutical research of the last few decades.
There are very few psychiatric practitioners who rely on his postulates any longer, and talk-based psycotherapy has been largely replaced by the use of drugs and behavioral conditioning.
But, oddly, the amount of talk therapy has not diminished, only morphed into various types of counselling for grief or anger or relationship problems, among many others. Indeed, if someone directed me to a hangnail support group, I wouldn’t be at all surprised.
I mention this as something akin to the odd situation we see in politics and academia around the world.
Even though every form of authoritarian/totalitarian political/social/economic structure for society has been thoroughly discredited by the painful real world experience of their repressive depredations across the globe, the expansion of such systems only seems to have been diverted, not stopped.
The two main threats which seem to be gaining strength are theocracy in the islamic countries, which may soon include much of Europe, and bureaucratic corporatism, a form of non-militaristic fascism, although the military may become more significant as time goes on.
Why has this happened, when the ruins of caliphates and monarchies, socialist and fascist dictatorships, and any number of derivative thugocracies litter the planet?
Clearly, this is a complex and multi-faceted problem, so I will not degrade the conversation by using that most useless of phrases, “It’s really very simple…”. It isn’t. Nothing human beings do is ever simple, that’s one of the things that make certain actions human.
Partly, I think the answer lies in the human tendency to form feudal structures based on personal relationships of loyalty, duty, and mutual support when they fashion organizations. Everybody wants to fit in, and “go along to get along” is a very powerful incentive.
One of the primary reasons so many organizations become disfunctional over time is the tendency of the members to shift their focus, and energies, from the original purpose to that of maintaining and strengthening the interpersonal relationships within the staff.
This is, by the way, one of the primary faults of an overly powerful state—the loyalties of the state cadres transfer over time from their initial purpose of serving or protecting the citizenry, to their own internal purposes of expanding their turf, staff, and budget.
But, even deeper, is the truly ancient motivator of human action—vested interests.
Shannon Love at Chicagoboyz recently posted a very nice summary of this problem.
Often, when we hear of certain people or groups making an argument that directly affects their livelihood and status, we are aware of the possibility that this position is not necessarily a disinterested analysis of the situation.
When there is no directly obvious monetary or other benefit, however, we sometimes fail to detect the vested interests of the public servant or academic, the journalist or the advocate/activist.
But, in many cases, as with the party whose passing inspired this post, the interest involved is much deeper and more fundamental than money.
As Love explains, their entire identity, and especially their intellectual structures, are intimately interwoven with the ideology they have adopted. For someone like this Cohen to apologize, or even admit errors, would require him to redefine his entire approach to reality.
He would be required to renounce very much more than just some intellectual theory—he would have to renounce his self.
When we look around the world, seeing the lunacies triumphant east, west, north, and south, we ask, bewildered, “Can’t they see what they’re doing? It’s all been tried before, and failed everywhere, in oceans of blood and mountains of bones. Why do it all again?”
Because, to not do it, to not teach it, to not preach it, to not practice it, would require them to stop being who they are.
If your entire existence is rooted in the ideology, secular or religious, that you have ingrained into every part of your being, it becomes who and what you are.
And your place in the great structure of “true believers” becomes more important than life itself.
They are committed to the collective, body and soul.
What are you committed to so completely that nothing else matters?
A good comment, as always, veryretired.
As for a “non capitalist mental space”.
First of all a “mental” space can be created in any land (being a Roman slave did not stop someone being a philosopher).
However, sometimes people say that by “capitalism” they mean materialism and an obsession with profit.
Being opposed to materialism does not seem very Marxist – however……
If someone wishes to go to a place dominated by communal practices (and without an “obsession” with individual cash profit) such alternatives are open to them.
Monasteries exist – and Mr Cohen would have been welcome to live and work in one (for a day or for the rest of his life).
“But I do not believe in God”.
Some athiests go on retreat – but if you insist……
There are many secular communes open to people like Mr Cohen – and, no, I am not just talking about Jews in Israel. People of all religions and none (militant athiests in fact) have such communes.
So if Mr Cohen wanted a society where “society organizes production” (Communist Manifesto 1848) such societies were open to him.
But no.
Mr Cohen wanted to IMPOSE THAT ON EVERYONE ELSE
And it is this, the doctrine that everyone should be forced to live under a certain system, that made Mr Cohen evil.
And, like Perry, I do not see why Mr Cohen being dead should prevent me telling the truth about how evil he was.
Perry, it is quite naughty to speak ill of the dead! You should be glad we don’t, or your funerals will be lengthy affairs! As it is, people will just say, “What can I say…?” and leave.
Hey, at least they’ll have something to say!
Maybe some of you should comment on the discussion going on at http://blog.mises.org/archives/010425.asp
I think Dr. Palmer is correct on this, but it seems that he won’t argue on their territory.