Rothbard on the most "imperialist" government?

Miscellaneous History
1

I decided to read For a New Liberty. What did I discover? Reading this text, http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p263, I refer to pp.269-290.

I come upon Rothbard using Marxist terminology: so-called “exploitation”. And Guerilla warfare, human bombs, etc. is a libertarian idea? And Rothbard adds, “from a mixture of theoretical and practical grounds of their own, the Soviets arrived early at what libertarians consider to be the only proper and principled foreign policy”? What was that?! And this discussion goes on and on, all in a decidedly pro-communist direction.

Interventionism is interventionism; and Roosevelt, Johnson, and et al contributed nothing except interventionism to the United States domestic and foreign policy (and Roosevelt even hushed up the discovery of what the Soviets did at Katyn).

However, saying the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets were relatively less-interventionist, and all the guerilla fractions in the world (who are avowed Socialists and name buildings and streets today after “Martyr” bandits who shoot civilians and blow up buses, and kill “exploiting capitalist Westerners”) are relatively more Libertarian than Western Socialists is an insult to Libertarians. I can see why Reisman criticized this book in his 1990 textbook.

What happened in fact?

The Soviets gobbled up republics (i.e. Russia has about half the population of the Soviet Union; the rest are in republics), and engaged in propaganda (leading to total nonsense in Germany and Austria, and the United States).

The German Liberals didn’t exist. The Historical School, which was basically socialist became national socialist, or left the country and became Soviet sympathizers (“you’ve got to pick sides” as said Stalin and Hitler, as if these were the two sides). Mises showed that the Germans were more thoroughly interventionist than the Soviets: the Soviets fixed production of goods, and the Nazis fixed the production of goods and people.

What few people know is that the Japanese Liberals got purged by socialists and the farm-war-anti-commerce-ascetic-brand of socialists (the military) by 1910-1920. Liberals of the Bastiat school, such as Tsuda, Nishi, Shigenobu, et al, were gone by then, and the remainder became emulators of Germany. Liberalism only remained in private universities. The countryside swayed from Marxism to Nationalism and the Ascetics won. Even Shigenobu was forced to make political concessions to bushido-ascetics and protectionist socialists during his prime-ministership back at the turn of the century. And it went downhill from there (as opposed to the 1870-1900 years).

The Middle East and Africa became highly protectionist after the collapse of the Colonial powers. They emulated the protectionism of the former colonial powers after independence (read Ghannian economist George Ayittey’s textbook Indigenous African Institutions and Africa in Chaos, for a great deal of particular information, for instance in the 50 or so African territories). They became highly interventionism and Marxist oriented (maxims like “profit is the Western concept; any man who engages in commerce without paying prohibitive taxes is to be shot” were popular in Africa and the Middle-East). (Also a good book to read, on how the so-called “East” fell down economically relative to the so-called “West” 1600-1900, even if only for the bibliography is David Landes’ The Wealth and Poverty of Nations; although Landes references Schumpeterian and Abbott Usher interpretation, not necessarily Austrian theory, he is at least a good historian.)

The US responded in an interventionist manner; true. But to tell a Russian, a Chinese, and a Japanese, that their respective country was less interventionist…

Why did Rothbard ditch a truly marginalist (antiviolence) understanding in favor of decidedly Marxist nonsense whenever he talked about Foreign Policy and the so-called “West”? Was he just angered by United States involvement in Vietnam in the 1970’s to write such nonsense? I find this very strange.

(Just so you know, we the Soviet intellectuals were all personally of the opinion that US backing of anticommunists was better nothing, i.e. than letting the “our” communist allies take over. Even Vysotsky wrote a couple of rather seditious songs about China and another about Egypt, our “allies”, back then. There is nothing to praise the US response, but the Soviet backing of modern butchers like Nasser was nothing to brag about and had nothing peaceful about it at all.)

2

Guerilla warfare is good in the sense that it does not necessitate taxation and doesn’t involve drafts.

A general framework of non-interventionist foreign policy. Can you name a country that the Soviet Union invaded apart from the push towards Germany during the second world war? I can only think of Finland and Afghanistan.

You did not understand the statement he was making. By saying guerilla warfare is close to libertarianism does not infer that blowing up innocents is libertarian. The point he was making is that guerillas are usually domestic fighters and it is in their interest and their tactics to regard innocent life as something to consider while standing armies can just indiscriminately bomb without a care.

What time period are you referring to exactly?

Ehh I would say until the 1918-1930’s. Purges really started near the end of the 20’s and into the 30’s. Specifically after the Peace Preservation Act.

I don’t understand what this has to do with Soviet foreign policy.

Again, they were.

Well these countries were less interventionist in terms of foreign policy relative to the United States.

3

You do understand that Guerillas for the most part are unable to successfully fight foreign armies?

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.

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.

Most insurgents use area of effect weapons that kill more civilians than military, and they are proud of it. Bandits did not disappear in the Middle ages; they just call themselves guerillas today. As Condillac remarked, people called merchants greedy because they have more ways of getting rich: but is it that the people themselves are less rich because less greedy, or less rich because they have fewer ways of getting rich beside that fact. To put a modern spin on that: Of course, bandits don’t tax anybody: but that is not to their credit. If they could they would (i.e. Hamas and the Talibs while in power); but so far they can’t in most places.

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.

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.

J.S. Mill made concession to Marxists too; but Austrians don’t praise that. 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.

Digression:

As far as German liberals, they were much fewer than in Japan, and had much less effect: in Japan, Bastiat was translated within 10 years of opening the country; Germany was “open” for centuries.

As for liberals, the Germans prior 1945, showed their taste for liberalism in their reception of Gossen. After he was rediscovered, they still did not accept marginalism, except for about two editors of an economics journal (the name of the journal escape my mind right now).

Digression:

(I talked about the former colonial territories to make a point that its not only Western governments that can be interventionist: If Rothbard is saying anyone can be more interventionist in foreign policy than the failed African States, leaving aside the Germans, then he cannot be more wrong even by that statement alone.)

4

When it comes down to guerrilla warfare specifically I could align this with militias, and I would like to use the Revolutionary War as a vague example.

Guerrilla armies are voluntary, and are generally united around a common framework. If their is an invading army in their country a militia might come together to combat the invading army. This is a non-Statist action that does not require taxation (since their is no State authority involved with the group to enfore taxation for them) and is voluntary.

When it comes to civilian kills vs. military, the guerrilla’s are more worried about having less civilian fatalities since that is their fellow citizens.

When it comes to contemporary warfare, who’s more less likely to have civilian fatalities; a heavily armed military with explosives with a high rate of collateral and human damage, or a group of lightly armed militiamen who are targeting specifically the invading army or armies?

5

Let us not forget the terrible crimes committed by Cheka in eliminating political opponents of the new Soviet regime.

Militias are almost always utilized in conventional warfare. Also, the Revolutionary War was very much a conventional war, with the most important battles (e.g. Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Charleston, and Yorktown) all being fought in the tactical style of previous wars between European powers.

Not congruent with historical experience in Africa

All armies are unified around a common framework.

This statement is not congruent with historical experience - guerrilla warfare is far more likely to involve the targeting of civilians than conventional.

6

He was pandering to the ‘new left’ or something. Sad but true.

7

maybe true for other example but the first claimed example is that ‘exploited’ is Marxist Terminology. ?? it only has Marxian connotations when the context is an investigation into trade under laissez-faire…

doesn’t the state exploit innocents in its territory, isn’t that standard libertarianism?

8

Agreed about ‘exploitation’ - it’s not marxist per se. Now, I can see how Rothbard thoroughly hated american ‘foreing policy’ and why he would suggest that Americans imperialists are worse than other imperialists. And he probably had a point - at least other imperialists don’t usually murder millions of people in the name of ‘human rights’.

9

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.

Are we talking about standing armies?

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.

Again religious turmoil. Military soldiers are still being killed at checkpoints and the like.

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.

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.

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.

10

Well everyone who calls themselves a capitalist is pandering to Marxism since Marx invented the word.

11

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

12

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.

13

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.

14

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.

15

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 18th 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]

16

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.)

17

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.

18

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 .

19

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.)

20

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.