pageok
pageok
pageok

As usual, an interesting and thoughtful column; I'm not sure that it's right, but it's definitely worth reading.

Humble Law Student:
I'd love to get Professor Drezner's opinion on it.
6.9.2006 6:24pm
Bart (mail):
Rauch does a pretty good job summarizing the basic tenets of "Realism" and each of these tenets has fundamental shortcomings.

Specifically, realism understands that:

· U.S. influence is a limited resource that needs conservation, and that using it requires leaders to make distasteful trade-offs and to deal with bad guys.


This makes sense when you are talking about tolerating the shortcomings of allies of convenience in a war as Jeanne Kirkpatrick advised Reagan.

It makes no sense when you are talking about your enemies. Converting a totalitarian enemy to democracy makes sense because democracies do not attack one another.

· Because human beings are not easily governable and because chaos is a first-order strategic menace, stability should be a top-tier priority, never a mere afterthought.

This is simply wrong when talking about your enemies. Even in the worst case of the enemy country descending into some level of chaos, the interests of the US are served because the enemy is no longer capable of attacking our country or its allies.

Democracy is a revolutionary concept and there will always be some level of disorder in the transition to democracy. Realism is therefore the worst foreign policy for advancing democracy.

· However idealistic its self-image, America has too many status quo interests ever to be a revolutionary power.

This is the thinking of an empire set on consolidating power. This approach does not speak for the American culture nor is it effective in producing a less dangerous world.

The US has "imposed" democracy on much of the rest of the world for most of the past century. The US has used diplomatic, economic and often military force to compel the democratization of fascist Germany, Italy and Japan during WWII and then again against the Soviet Empire and its client states under the Reagan Doctrine.

Mr. Rauch correctly describes the defensive strategy of containment that was in effect from Truman through Carter waiting in vain for the Soviet Empire to evolve. He neglects, however, to discuss how the Cold War was won in the 80s by going on the offensive with the intent of overthrowing communism across the world and replacing it with democracy.

· Except in the short run, the American people care more about interests than ideals and will tolerate idealistic adventurism only briefly.

Realism also has a healthy strain of isolationism. This view is also historically incorrect. The United States has been has been engaged in "idealistic adventurism" for the most part since WWII. A good deal of the world owes its new democracies and freedoms to the United States.
6.9.2006 6:50pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Good essay by Rauch; "realism" alone is not a policy, but it should be an element of any policy.

I do wish he hadn't invented "centrist Democrats" as the advocates of Liberating The World. *Some* "centrist Democrats," but I would scarcely believe that centrist-Dems-in-general are on board for globalizing the Marshall Plan. At any rate, the neocons and this Administration are far more closely associated, in word if not deed, with the airy-fairy Democracy Pixie Dust that Rauch rightly condemns.
6.9.2006 7:41pm
Christopher Cooke (mail):

the Cold War was won in the 80s by going on the offensive with the intent of overthrowing communism across the world and replacing it with democracy.


Or, it was "won" because of the rise to power of Gorbachev, who decided to open up the Soviet Union's totalitarian political system, and the willingness of Western leaders to encourage, rather than to confront, him (for which I give credit to Thatcher and Reagan). I think you have a simplistic view of history.
6.9.2006 7:48pm
Medis:
I must have missed our invasion of Eastern Europe.

Anyway, I am skeptical of all reductionist "-isms" when it comes to foreign policy, but I agree with most of what Rauch wrote. I think a lot of it comes down to being realistic about our available resources, and thinking not just about the possible benefits of any particular action, but also the possible costs, with a healthy respect for the law of unintended consequences. I also think it makes sense to leverage our limited resources, which often means working with and through other countries, even when they don't want to do things exactly our way. Finally, we should keep in mind that not all problems can be best solved through the actions of governments, and sometimes the proper role of governments is simply to help private actors, or even just get out of their way.
6.9.2006 8:55pm
Medis:
Oh, and on "The Reagan Doctrine":

I think in some sense the jury is still out on this plan of supporting insurgent forces in Soviet client states. The genius of this plan was that it cost relatively little for the United States, and imposed huge costs on the Soviet Union (a lesson we might have thought about before trying to set up our own client state in Iraq). But critics at the time warned about "blowback" and other unintended consequences. And unfortunately, the Taliban, Bin Laden, and 9/11 all arguably count as unintended consequences of this strategy.
6.9.2006 9:06pm
Lev:

Or, it was "won" because of the rise to power of Gorbachev, who decided to open up the Soviet Union's totalitarian political system,


Or, it was "won" because having decided to open the USSR's gates just a little bit to try and same The Party and The State, Gorby was not willing to use the force necessary to shut the door and keep things from getting out of hand.

Uncle Joe and Vlad would not have made either mistake.
6.10.2006 12:50am
biu (mail):
手机铃声 和弦铃声下载 手机铃声免费下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 mp3铃声下载 下载手机铃声 三星手机铃声 手机铃声 免费铃声下载 铃声下载免费 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑免费铃声 铃声下载免费 搞笑下载铃声 下载铃声 三星铃声 免费铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 MP3铃声下载 手机铃声下载手机铃声 免费铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑免费铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声下载搞笑下载铃声 下载铃声 mp3手机铃声 三星铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载免费铃声下载 铃声下载免费 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦特效铃声下载 文秘写作 竞聘演讲稿 个人工作总结 八荣八耻演讲稿 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 免费歌曲铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 mp3铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 mp3手机铃声 免费手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑铃声 免费手机铃声 免费铃声免费铃声下载 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声免费下载 mp3铃声 免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 免费铃声下载 手机mmf铃声下载mp3手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声免费铃声 免费手机铃声 mp3铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声
6.10.2006 3:23am
Anderson (mail) (www):
Well said, biu!
6.10.2006 11:24am
Freder Frederson (mail):
The US has used diplomatic, economic and often military force to compel the democratization of fascist Germany, Italy and Japan during WWII and then again against the Soviet Empire and its client states under the Reagan Doctrine.

This is a gross oversimplification of the last sixty years of world history, ignores the contribution of our Allies (even the Soviet Union) in World War II and the fact that World War II was a defensive, not offensive war (we were attacked by the fascist powers, we didn't start the war to change their ways).

As for the US force to compel the democratization of the Soviet Empire, that is one of the enduring myths of the Reagan legacy, and practically the only one that remains that convinces people he was a great president. The facts simply don't back it up. The Soviet Union collapsed completely of its own accord and nobody was more suprised by its demise than the Reaganites. Up until the day the citizens of Berlin were smashing the wall with sledgehammers the rightwing in this country was convinced that the Soviet Union would be the enternal evil empire.

We support dictators at our peril. The reason we are stuck with the Hosni Mubarak's and House of Saud's of the world is they eliminate all moderate opposition, leaving the only the fringe radicals. Then they claim, "If you get rid of me or I allow democratic elections, the real crazies will take over." This is a classic case of a man murdering his parents and begging for the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.
6.10.2006 12:52pm
Paul McKaskle (mail):
World War II was defensive from a strictly American perspective if one looks at the immediate cause, Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war. But France and Britain declared war on Germany when Poland was invaded--not when they were attacked. And the USSR initially participated in the carve-up of Poland, not a defensive act, and for them the war became "defensive" only after Germany attacked them.

One can only speculate what would have happened if France and Britain had declared war against Germany when Hitler moved troops into the Saarland or even if, instead of bargaining for "peace in our time" Neville Chamberlain had said, get out of Czechoslovaka or we will invade. Some historians have suggested the German military would have deposed Hitler (I'm not sure) but in any event Hitler would have been much weaker militarily. It might have been a messy war in '37 or '38, and there would probably have been a lot of criticism at how un-necessary it was and calls to bail out before the job was completed (assuming the German high command didn't depose Hitler right away) but then, we would have never known of the much greater horror that turned out to be WWII.

Are there any lessons which apply to the current war in Iraq?
6.10.2006 4:39pm
Freder Frederson (mail):
But France and Britain declared war on Germany when Poland was invaded--not when they were attacked.

France and Britain had a mutual defense pact with Poland. An attack on Poland constituted an act of war against France and Britain, that was why they declared war (and why Hitler attempted to claim Poland was the aggressor). Hitler moved troops into the Sudetanlad after he received assurances that France and Britain would not stop him, not the other way around.
6.10.2006 7:04pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
Rauch has me confused. Or maybe he is the confused one.

Why is Bush not supporting a free and independent Kurdistan? Why is he forcing the very unhappy Kurds to submit to government by Arabs whose history is to oppress and destroy them?

Which is the real and which is the ideal?

Heck with analyzing the fragrant remains of the former Soviet Union. There are fresh fish to fry right now.
6.10.2006 10:53pm
just me:
Mr. Frederson writes that


The Soviet Union collapsed completely of its own accord and nobody was more suprised by its demise than the Reaganites.


If the Reaganites were surprised, I suppose the definition of Reaganites excludes Pres. Reagan himself, and further, that none of the Reaganites believed Pres. Reagan when he said this:

"The years ahead will be great ones for our country, for the cause of freedom and the spread of civilization. The West will not contain Communism, it will transcend Communism. We will not bother to denounce it, we'll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written."

(Notre Dame University, May 17, 1981 )

and this:

It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history.... [It is] the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism- Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. (June 1982)

and more:

In an ironic sense, Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis -- a crisis where the demands of the economic order are colliding directly with those of the political order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West, but in the home of Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union.... [Communism will be] left on the ash heap of history.

and of course, the ever-popular:

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

(Berlin, 1987)

(me speaking again:)

Thus, even if one puts aside all arguments about whether Reagan helped to effect or at least affect the Sovcchange, it seems pretty odd to deny that he predicted it, and urged it on, etc. Saying that it was a complete surprise requires one to ignore many well-known statements.

So I pose these Qs respectfully to Mr. Frederson:

Did these statements not happen? Or do they not amount, in your reading, to predictions/urgings of Soviet collapse? Or do they not represent Reagan's "true" views, but somehow are an aberrant strain of quotes that are outweighed by some other batch of Reagan statements (that perhaps you can provide) to the effect that the Soviets would last for decades more?

Or is it simply that you exclude Reagan from the Reaganites, as I noted above?

Or is it that your statement is wrong?
6.11.2006 4:44am
just me:
Typo above - "Sovcchange" should be "Soviet change." Perhaps it was a subconscious attempt to create one of those great Soviet-style word creations.
6.11.2006 4:50am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Uuh, Germany was a democracy just before WWII. There was an awful lot of votin' and speechmakin' in that there parliament that got the Nazis and Hitler the seats to get to power. Nazi Germany then went on to attack other democracies. So the statement that "democracies don't attack other democracies" is pretty inaccurate, there are probably at least several other examples. I know this is hard to believe, but sometimes masses of people vote for wackjobs.

Although everyone loves the term "fascist", economically the Nazis were socialist. There wasn't much power shared with business interests, they retained ownership in name alone. Prices, wages, dividends, etc. were all dictacted by the political leadership.
6.11.2006 4:51am
Medis:
American Psikhushka,

But of course many important Nazis were actually businessmen, whose power and wealth effectively increased under the Nazis. In that sense, it is true the Nazis were socialists (and after all, that is what "Nazis" means--National Socialists), but their integration of German government and business was actually to the conscious benefit of many entrenched business interests. In general, entrenched business interests do not necessarily favor free market capitalism, because the competition arising out of such a system is actually best for consumers, not businesses.

And, of course, this is precisely one of the issues we need to worry about in Iraq, and in the Middle East in general. The business of oil gives certain people a large incentive to attempt to structure governments to their liking, and democratic outcomes are often contrary to such interests.
6.11.2006 10:13am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Medis-

There's no doubt there were party cronies that did better than others due to their connections, party loyalty, etc. But prices, wages, dividends, etc. were set by the government. Once you have this you basically have a centrally planned economy.
6.11.2006 12:49pm
Medis:
American Psikhushka,

Absolutely. I'm just pointing out that centrally planned economies can work to the advantage of some businesses, and hence to the advantage of people with interests in those favored businesses.

Indeed, the general word for this is a "kleptocracy", and I think Nazi Germany was an example of a kleptocracy (among other things). And it is a well-recognized fact that nations dominated by natural resource wealth (diamonds, oil, etc.) have a greater tendency towards kleptocracy (largely because all the kleptocrats have to do is tax what is sometimes known as the Ricardian rent).

So, I think one of our great problems in the Middle East, including Iraq, is that kleptocratic forces are working in opposition to democracy.
6.11.2006 2:46pm
The Voice of Reason (mail):
Absolutely. I'm just pointing out that centrally planned economies can work to the advantage of some businesses

Yes. Look at Putin's regime today. It is a paradigmatic example of Medis' ideal.
6.11.2006 3:42pm
Medis:
TVOR,

I'm not sure I understand your comment. I hardly think that kleptocracies are "ideal". In fact, they are arguably the worst of the common forms of government (holding aside anarchy), because not only are they unjust, but they also tend to be highly inefficient, incompetent, and unstable. Basically, they have almost no virtue one could plausibly associate with good government.
6.11.2006 4:16pm
Freder Frederson (mail):
Did these statements not happen? Or do they not amount, in your reading, to predictions/urgings of Soviet collapse? Or do they not represent Reagan's "true" views, but somehow are an aberrant strain of quotes that are outweighed by some other batch of Reagan statements (that perhaps you can provide) to the effect that the Soviets would last for decades more?

Reagan did have some soaring rhetoric (and very good speech writers). Now I don't know how you take his speechifying to imbue with him with some kind of foreknowledge that the Berlin Wall would indeed collapse (and of course, it wasn't Gorbachev, but the German people that tore it down) within two years of the end of his presidency. His rhetoric was just that. It meant nothing more and was no more predictive than Kruschev and Lenin saying that they would crush the west or that when it came time to hang the capitalists they would sell them the rope.

I don't see anywhere that Reagan predicted that the Soviet Union would be gone within a couple of years. If he really thought this, why bother with SDI and the huge military buildup? That would have been a total waste, especially Star Wars, as that would have taken decades to build. Obviously, he must have thought the Soviets were going to be a threat for a long time no matter what he said.
6.11.2006 7:36pm
Freder Frederson (mail):
Uuh, Germany was a democracy just before WWII. There was an awful lot of votin' and speechmakin' in that there parliament that got the Nazis and Hitler the seats to get to power.

Give me a break, shortly after Hitler was named Chancellor in 1933, there was a fire under suspicious circumstances in Reichstag which Hitler blamed on the Communists (actually pretty much agrees it was set by the Nazis). Hitler asked for and received dictatorial powers. That was the end of democracy in Germany until 1953 (1990 for East Germany).
6.11.2006 7:40pm
Freder Frederson (mail):
There's no doubt there were party cronies that did better than others due to their connections, party loyalty, etc. But prices, wages, dividends, etc. were set by the government. Once you have this you basically have a centrally planned economy.

This is absolute nonsense. Hitler's Germany, even at the peak of the war economy was never by any stretch of the imagination, a socialist state. A corrupt and inefficient kleptocracy, yes. But there was never a push to significantly nationalize industries except those owned by Jews (and even most of those were sold off to private entities). And the western democracies were able to achieve a much better and more efficient war economy than the Germans ever were and exercise more control over their economies during the war.
6.11.2006 7:47pm
Irensaga (mail):
Regardless, of what Nazi Germany was, it's just silly to say that we went to War with Germany, or Japan, because they were facists/communists, or whatever.

We did no such thing. Most Americans didn't know about what was happening to the Jews until AFTER the war. Furthermore, everyone in the USA, more or less, didn't give a damn whether Hitler was democratically elected, militarily imposed, facist, communist, king of France, or claiming to be God almighty.

We went after him because he was a threat to a lot of stuff. End of story. No one really cared what his ideology was.
6.11.2006 8:27pm
Irensaga (mail):
Oh, and there is one fatal flaw in neoconservatism.

Sometimes democracy doesn't work. Sometimes, the voice of the people LIKES paranoid, aggressive, brutal nutjobs.

In fact, scratch "sometimes." Make that often. The people often like, want, and demand, rulers that are downright evil. People like these guys.

Democracy isn't some magic fairy dust you can just sprinkle on everyone.

In present-day Russia, for example. I'm more scared of democracy there than responsible dictatorship. If you've ever looked at the public opinion polls of ordinary Russians, and listened to the paranoid nonsense being shouted by even their most educated, you'd think twice about advocating "free and fair elections" in Moscow. Democracy in Russia would basically mean euthanization of the mentally ill, imprisonment of all non-white Russians, sterilization of gay men, torture of sex offenders, and official persecution of all minority relgions. True Democracy in Russia would be an unmitigated disaster.

The neoconservatives don't make these distinctions. It's the biggest hole in their world view.
6.11.2006 8:36pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Medis-

Yes, Hitler and his cronies did loot and live in ridiculous luxury, but they did undertake a lot of initiatives for what they thought was "the good of the German people". (Of course much of this was totalitarian nonsense.)

But the government set prices, wages, and dividends and this amounts to a centrally planned socialist economy with business owners being actual owners in name only.
6.12.2006 2:50am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Give me a break, shortly after Hitler was named Chancellor in 1933, there was a fire under suspicious circumstances in Reichstag which Hitler blamed on the Communists (actually pretty much agrees it was set by the Nazis). Hitler asked for and received dictatorial powers. That was the end of democracy in Germany until 1953 (1990 for East Germany).

He was still elected and the country was still a democracy when he was elected. That's a flaw of democracy, it is subject to manipulation by demagogues.
6.12.2006 2:58am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
This is absolute nonsense. Hitler's Germany, even at the peak of the war economy was never by any stretch of the imagination, a socialist state. A corrupt and inefficient kleptocracy, yes. But there was never a push to significantly nationalize industries except those owned by Jews (and even most of those were sold off to private entities). And the western democracies were able to achieve a much better and more efficient war economy than the Germans ever were and exercise more control over their economies during the war.

Business owners were owners in name only. The government set prices, wages, and dividends. That is central planning, you don't have to nationalize businesses at that point. If you own a factory and it costs $10 to make a pair of boots and the fuhrer says he's only going to pay you $10 a pair - congratulations, comrade, you are a private business in name only. At least you don't have to change the signage and stationary. At that point the government controls how much income everyone makes.

I know socialists and collectivists don't like to hear that the Nazis were really leftists economically, but in actual practice they were.
6.12.2006 3:08am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Irensaga-

We didn't attack Japan and Germany because they were "threats", we attacked them because Japan attacked us and Germany had invaded several other countries.

World War II wasn't a "pre-emption" where we attacked someone that was just a "threat", real or imagined.
6.12.2006 3:14am
Freder Frederson (mail):
But the government set prices, wages, and dividends and this amounts to a centrally planned socialist economy with business owners being actual owners in name only.

You are simply wrong. There were price and wage controls during the war, yes, but so what? There were also price and wage controls in all the other countries involved in the war. When your entire economy is on a war footing and dedicated to producing war materiel and a significant portion of the labor force is diverted into the military, there is a shortage of consumer goods and labor. Price and labor controls are required to prevent runaway inflation and profiteering.

You just ignore the fact that the wage and price controls were just as draconian in the U.S. and Britain. That those two countries, in every sense of the word, did a better job than Germany of creating centralized economies. They told private companies what to produce, effectively banned the production of all but the most basic consumer goods (I challenge you to find a 1943 model civilian Ford or Chevrolet), imposed rationing, wage and price controls.

To call the Nazis "socialist" just because they had socialist as part of their name makes as much sense as calling Franco in Spain a "Republican" because that is what is movement was called.
6.12.2006 11:06am
Medis:
American Psikhushka,

As an aside, I think this is one of the many problems with the overly-simplistic "Left-Right" political spectrum. Historically, people and parties identified as being on both the "Left" and the "Right" respectively have been authoritarians, including with respect to economic activity. So to say that the Nazis ultimately subordinated German businesses to the state does not necessarily place them on the politial Left (for another example, consider President Nixon, who also instituted wage and price controls; or consider the House of Saud). But that just shows how misleading this Left/Right rhetoric actually can be, particularly when it comes to the proper scope and authority of the government.

Incidentally, Hayek wrote a great essay on this general subject, entitled "Why I am not a conservative". He offers a triangle as an alternative to the one-dimensional political spectrum, with "liberals" in the classic sense forming the third corner (along with "conservatives" and "socialists"). And Hayek points out how "conservatives" frequently slide toward "socialism" in economic matters because of their general fear of uncontrolled social forces and fondness for authority.

Anyway, I agree that nominal ownership of a business can mean very little. But that point cuts both ways. For example, consider a nominally "socialist" situation in which the state theoretically owns a business. But suppose that a certain person nonetheless has in practice the authority to extract wealth from this business and transfer it to his personal use. The fact that the state, rather than this person, nominally owns this business means very little, because this person in practice has one of the most important attributes of ownership (the ability to extract wealth from the thing owned).

Indeed, I think this is one of the great myths of socialism--that nominal state ownership actually equates with ownership by the people. Rather, in substance it actually equates with ownership by whomever holds state power.

Anyway, much of this is just semantics. I think the important point is that it is frequently the case that economically-authoritarian regimes are used by individual people to increase and maintain their personal wealth, which gives such people an incentive to push nations toward authoritarian regimes. And again, this is particularly likely to happen in nations where a large percentage of the economy is based on natural resources.

So, whether one wants to call such people Rightists or Leftists, fascists or socialists, conservatives or radicals, and so on, doesn't really matter. The important point is that no matter what ideology they claim to hold, their desire to use authoritarianism to increase their personal wealth makes them natural enemies of democracy and free-market capitalism.
6.12.2006 11:42am
Medis:
Freder,

Although I agree that there are many points of commonality between the wartime US economy and the wartime Nazi German economy, that comparison is a bit misleading. State corporatism was not just a wartime measure according to Nazi ideology (and fascist ideology in general)--it was supposed to be a permanent condition.
6.12.2006 12:02pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Freder-

So the US government set dividend limits too?

And bringing up the US and British economies doesn't help your point - they shifted toward socialism too.
6.12.2006 5:21pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Medis-

The general framework for my argument comes from this article, its an excellent read in my opinion:

http://www.mises.org/story/1937

In your comment above you state:

So to say that the Nazis ultimately subordinated German businesses to the state does not necessarily place them on the politial Left (for another example, consider President Nixon, who also instituted wage and price controls; or consider the House of Saud). But that just shows how misleading this Left/Right rhetoric actually can be, particularly when it comes to the proper scope and authority of the government.

I disagree with you on this point. One of the main points of the linked article is: (1) that price and wage controls disrupt the market clearing mechanism; and (2) create shortages; (3) the shortages cause the planners to enact rationing; (4) in order to prevent black markets from getting around the rationing draconian laws must be created and enforced, resulting in totalitarianism. So the gist of the article is that socialism requires totalitarianism to exist.

So in response to your point I would maintain that wage and price controls are a socialist initiative no matter who enacts them, including a US president who is nominally an "economic conservative". This is complicated by the Left-Right labeling system that you mention. An example of this is Freder's argument above that wage and prices controls can't be socialist because nominally capitalist US and Britain enacted them during the war. To which I responded that those initiatives were socialist and that those economies shifted toward socialism during that period.

As fars as resolving the labeling issue, I prefer a second axis of Statism/Nonstatism perpendicular to the Left/Right axis rather than a triangle. A heavily statist government will grow to regulate everything, regardless of left or right ideology, simply due to its size, scope, and economic hindrance. A nonstatist government doesn't have the resources to regulate much beyond essential services.

I agree with your other points, I don't think there's much we disagree about here.
6.12.2006 5:54pm
Medis:
American Psikhushka,

Indeed, I don't think we disagree about much, including the right label (ie, I agree the Nazis were socialists). Incidentally, I am fine with two-dimensions rather than a triangle, although interestingly, I'm not sure what would define the difference between Left and Right among nonstatists. In other words, I think that distinction tends to disappear among nonstatists as they converge on a more limited sense of the proper scope of government.

Hence, Hayek's triangle, where increasing distance from both authoritarian conservatives and authoritarian socialists would graphically indicate such a convergence. Of course, nonstatists may disagree about what nongovernmental institutions should be doing (eg, they may disagree over whether or when such institutions should be seeking social progress or social conservation), but I do think this convergence tends to arise as people increasingly see the government as the wrong vehicle for any sort of comprehensive attempt at social manipulation whatsoever.

Anyway, I found that article interesting, but I would suggest that the author may have in fact bought into the myth of socialism that I noted. In other words, he seems to take socialists at their word when they claim it is the government, and not individuals, who own the means of production. But governments are made up of people, and insofar as certain people have taken sufficient control of a socialist government, they effectively own the means of production.

In that sense, when the state and businesses merge in fascist-style socialism, it is not exactly clear who is coopting whom. In other words, it is true both that the government is seizing control of businesses, but also that businesses are seizing control of the government.

Again, my point is not that the Nazis were not socialists. Rather, my point is that socialism is not necessarily adverse to certain vested economic interests, and conversely, free-market capitalism does not necessarily favor certain vested economic interests. Which, to bring us back to the main discussion, is really something we need to be realistic about when deciding issues of foreign policy.
6.12.2006 6:50pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Medis-

I don't think the author would disagree with your observations on socialism. In my opinion he would probably just chalk it up as one of the other major problems with the system.
6.13.2006 3:17am