[annatar1914]

This is what I relish, this kind of debate and dialogue:-).

Victoribus Spolia my friend, in regards to my question concerning transition phases leading to Anarcho-Capitalist existence, and whether in your view (or other Anarcho-Capitalists on this forum) the State inherently leads to Socialism/Communism, you said;

Certain states trend towards communism by praxeological necessity as an inevitable end (unless they crash or are conquered prior to their fulfillment). These states are social contracts; usually starting as liberal democracies like the U.S. and many others, but they will continue to expand public ownership, the welfare state, demographic enfranchisement, the military, and spending. They must, its inevitable.

If I may, I'd like to ask you to expand upon this answer, because i'm of the opinion even when I was Socialistic, that ''Welfarism'' is not ''Socialism'', although I am well aware that the belief that this is so is very much an American political phenomena on the American Right. I do believe you are right, regarding what happens to liberal social contract states, but to me it doesn't necessarily follow that this is their path to Socialism.

This same praxeological constraint is not the same with monarchies because they are privately owned and if a private family is liable for its debts and has a reign that is predicated on some concept of property rights, a king is not going to expand his government arbitrarily, it would be too much of a liability to his own family and wealth.

Could it not be the case that if everything belongs by right to the Emperor, for example, than the Emperor could dispose of his land exactly as he pleases, even setting up a Socialistic type arrangement with the people of his land? Could you define what manner of ''liability'' it would be to him, if by his sovereignty he was above any legal arrangement whatsoever, as per legal thinkers like Carl Schmidtt?

Representatives in a republic don't give a shit because the money they are spending is not theirs.

Well, the money is the people's, really, so it is for the people to be vigilant in placing people into positions of public trust for the common good of all. This too is why every post-modern and pre-modern State has had some kind of private Sovereignty over and beyond the machinery of government, that could step in and fix things as needed, making the actual State in every case a mere vestigial remnant.

The fall of the state will come when insolvency, conflict, popular resentment, and some other resource crisis meet at a head. If Spengler is correct, demographic change and decadence would be major contributors as well and some sort of Caesar figure may take the reigns of the state before it can turn to communism. The Caesar will implement a conservative government, a fascist-esque imperial dictatorship over a super-state; however, such a state will still become insolvent and the traditionalism enforced will be artificial and temporary, Spengler admits this.

Yes, this is his and other members of the ''conservative revolutionaries'' (from which I drew much inspiration at one time, actually) call the ''Prussian'' or ''Right-Wing'' Socialism. Marxist Leninists say that there is no such real thing, but there it is, the root of 20th century Fascism.

Caesarism is the last stage and it collapses.

Depends on definitions, as by most accounts this collapse lasted centuries, and in the East, went on another 1000 years or more.

Whats comes out of this is a new order which is basically feudalism or anarcho-capitalism just as Europe was post-Roman collapse.

I don't doubt that this is likely in some areas of the world.

I would also like to point out that you understanding of idealism is grossly misrepresentative

If it is, I'd like to know where this is the case. It may also be that my own ideas regarding Idealism have been expressed ambiguously and lack a certain clarity.

and I think your materialistic monism is concerning.

Well, it isn't Pantheism, if that is your concern, and it primarily involves Creation, and not the Creator.

I know you appeal to Tertullian and Milton, but neither of them are examples I would brag about either in theological circles.

I don't know if I can say that I ''brag'' about them, Tertullian and Milton, as that my thinking in this instance is close to theirs.

Tertullian was never canonized because of his ties to Montanism

An unfortunate lapse, but he was no Origen, and there is no ''Tertullianism'' as such out there. What is there among his extant writings is theological opinion, and that's as far as my own ideas go, opinion. Like elbows, everybody's got two, usually

and Milton was of the broad puritan tradition which had many of its own problems as I am sure you would agree.

But in this particular instance, materiality, I would venture to guess that most Christians alive in his time and before believed with John Milton that even the things and beings that are ordinarily invisible to us still possess a measure of corporeality, of divisibility and extension in three dimensions. He also inclined, as did they, to pre-Copernican ideas on Cosmology as well. He threw quite a bit of the baby out with the bathwater, but not all.

I use these two men as examples also, because I cannot find much of an instance of Christian material monism after the 1600's in the history of thought. But read the Fathers; at how much of a distance are they from this view? If they have I have not noticed it.

Thank you, looking forward to your answers.

[starman2003]

The collapse or Caesarism?

The collapse of Caesarism.

Thats simply not true. The Roman empire had problems on every front; politically, religiously, economically, demographically, et al.

It faced myriad problems but most weren't really decisive in bringing down the empire. It still had adequate financial resources well into the fifth century.

We'll see, I can't preclude the possibility of Democracy collapsing before a totalitarian (caesarian) takeover.

I don't see how, in the US at least, dictatorship can take over without democracy collapsing.

I would probably prefer it in all actuality. I would prefer to get the pain over and to return to the natural state without prolonging it with a conservative dictator.

Well, naturally, the raison d'etre of dictatorship or Caesarism is to do better than the democracy it replaces. Assuming it can do so, it should last a very long time if not indefinitely.

The sooner the collapse, the better.

I don't think we'll see a real collapse of democracy until maybe midcentury.

[annatar1914]

While I'd certainly like to wait until Victoribus Spolia is able to reply to my comments in our dialogue, my musings about my personal embrace of a form of traditionalism, and a post-communist way of thinking, have lead me back to the ''Essence of Time'' Movement of Oleg Kurginyan and like-minded Russian citizens, who themselves have made similar reflections since 1989-1991 to today.

Their website;

www.eot.su

their manifesto;

http://eu.eot.su/about/manifesto/

So that one can see for one's self the passion and the pathos of a sincere and genuinely good-hearted desire to create a ''USSR 2.0'' out of the ruins of the old, for the sake of future Humanity, learning from previous mistakes and reaching out to nationalists and the spiritual minded...

And here's a article I read concerning them and this movement from the reactionary blogger on 'Social Matter', ''Mark Citidel'', which I found to be interesting;

The Essence Of Time: A Study In Post-Marxism
MARK CITADEL MAY 8, 2017 5 COMMENTS

Communism and fascism. Both were in many ways expressions of a similar discontent, a result of modernity’s growing pains in a time after the institutions of communal solidarity had either had their power destroyed or discredited (a process which is finally finished by WWI), but before technology had caught up enough to satisfy certain distracting indulgences. In addition, both were essentially expressions of ‘post-liberal’ socialist critique.

While there was certainly a heated divide between the two, even before Adolf Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union, this was in many cases due to an overestimation of communism’s ability to level cultures, something which was present on both sides. While fascism was a misguided attempt at revitalization, communism was a misguided attempt at revolution. What the last century teaches us is that when it comes to revolution, liberalism is the only game that matters when the sun goes down. Both communist and fascist theory have been discredited and discarded. Russia’s official Communist Party is the twin brother of western neo-nazis, in that neither has seen any ideological development since the defeat of their forebears. What changes they do exhibit are often the result of unexplained compromise or just general qualitative degeneration. In their respective directions, they had essentially been taken to the limits of the imagination and found wanting.

While these ideologies are certainly modern in their formulation, they were distinct from liberalism, encapsulating their own separate political theories. As with anything illiberal, the underlying current of their appeal lay in some kind of truth concerning liberalism’s failings. As an archetype, ‘communism’ responded to social, rather than economic, failures. Rapid urbanization and industrialization, under the auspices of an open labor market in the age where there were no labor protections, involved no acknowledgement of the potentially damaging and atomization effects of this change, and thus no plans to mitigate them.

If Karl Marx had not adapted the socialist ideas of his day into a radical ideology, someone else would have. It is a shame that he became this archetype’s champion, however, due to the noxious nature of most of his ideas, the application of which left the largest bloodstain on the 20th century. I would argue, in fact, that a large part of the failure of explicitly reactionary movements can be put down to communism and fascism enticing many bright malcontents, who otherwise would have been anti-modernist proponents.

What are communists up to nowadays? It would be wrong to assert that they have not undergone any kind of ideological development since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the extent to which this development has tried to interface with hard facts about human nature and modernity itself remains an open question. To get some sense of it, I want to take a look at the lengthy official manifesto of Essence of Time (Суть Времени), a Russian movement founded by political scientist Sergei Kurginyan in 2011. While today’s Russian Communist Party runs on a snooze-worthy nostalgia, Essence of Time is a dynamic fringe group with a devoted following and is pursuing a line of ideological development rather than stagnation.

Four principles ground Essence of Time: Avowed revanchism, a desire to discover the exact reasons behind the collapse of the Soviet Union, a desire to restore all that has been lost, and a conviction to pursue the above lines with passion, reason, and will. These are somewhat vague principles, and thus it would best serve the purposes of this essay to first discuss what innovations Essence has made to Marxist theory, and why it may represent a ‘post-Marxist’ type of communism, and then to point out its blunders in understanding, as well as its unwillingness to face the full reality of the last hundred years, and indeed, the last three hundred.

We might initially point out the positive elements of the movement. Firstly, it has rejected Marxist internationalism in much the same vein as the post-Lenin Soviet leaders, sniping at potential émigrés who refuse to commit themselves to either fixing Russia or dying with her. This sense of grounding is always welcome against the backdrop of the sterilized and utopian ideals of global revolution. You could also point to the theme of ‘something special lost’ and the movement’s glorification of the past as a distinctively illiberal trait. Liberals (the avowed sort) almost never regret leaving the past behind. In addition, they side with the sociologist Max Weber over Karl Marx when it comes to the issue of giving society itself a character which stands apart from the mere means of production.

While he recognized the crucial importance of the artificial material environment itself and the laws, governing within it, Weber tried to convince Marx’s supporters to consider society as another independent factor that is not a material, but that is rather a social environment, which is just as artificial as the material environment, and is created by man and governed by its own laws, both adopted by man and ruling over man.

While it makes the cardinal error of attributing ‘artificiality’ to this social environment, as if it can only exist in an artificial state, it is laudable to at the very least depart from Marx’s evidently false reductionism.

The final element of the manifesto that has considerable merit is attention to history concerning how the bourgeoisie emerged from feudalism to displace the old order, transcending what had been the limits of the vaisya class. The piece also explains how the divide in affluence between vaisya and brahmin/kshatriya set up a narrative of figures like Robespierre serving as champions of the poor, even while today’s ruling class live far more indulgently than did their predecessors.

However, the author seems ignorant of certain special factors which led to the regression of the castes, namely the Black Death’s effects on labor and feudal cowardice in the face of peasant rebellions.

Throughout the entire manifesto, I was somewhat astonished by how useless Marx was to it. Elements of his theory are repeated, but almost as a historical curiosity that has lost its usefulness. Gone were the key hallmarks of Marxist thinking, particularly in terms of class conflict. In fact, while the document at one point indulges in a rather embarrassing appeal to the fear of Nazism (like a plastic skeleton popping out on the ghost train), it practically approaches the issue of class from the standpoint of co-operation (a typically fascist viewpoint) and strangely alludes to enthroning ‘scientists’ in the place of a despised ‘intelligentsia’, playing up Essence’s utopian view of education as a wellspring of goodness.

“We admit that since science has become a fully-fledged productive force, in the 21st century the place of the intelligentsia as a social layer is taken by the cognitariat, as a class possessing all rights that result from science’s new status.”

I wonder if the author is aware of the blurred lines in the west between science and the intelligentsia. We are now, after all, assured by my-first-chemistry-kit educators that “Who enjoys a fleshlight, in the cold moonlight?” is a stimulating conundrum on the level of Goldbach’s Conjecture, but I digress. Because Marx feels so tacked on, the manifesto actually tries to justify to itself why he is necessary.

'To understand the fate of capitalism, the notion of legitimacy must be introduced to Marxism. This involves theoretical and practical political challenges that are to be overcome by combining Marx and Weber. We will lose Marxism otherwise (which will lead to an essential analytical and political disorientation), and we will not be able to analyze the key issue of the twenty-first century.'

I would probably be somewhat disorientated, too, if the founder of my school of thought proved to be completely irrelevant to its development in the new millennium, but this is the pitfall of Marx. A lot of what he predicted never came to pass, because he had no handle on human nature. He simply believed Rousseau, and then wondered why perfect mankind wasn’t hurrying up on its promise of equality. While the manifesto acknowledges Marxist theory has not been comprehensive for a long time, I would say it has been completely unnecessary for even longer. What scarce truths came out of Marx had already been said by men far greater than him, long before.

Essence’s manifesto does provide an accurate account of the differences between Russian capitalism and the capitalism that developed in the west. The manifesto notes that under the Soviet system, there weren’t very many savers, compared to the West. People could not easily accumulate wealth, and so when it came to the auctioning of Russia’s assets, a very different, criminally-based capitalism emerged. The only ones who could afford to purchase these assets were mafias who could pool their funds, illegal speculators, or thetsekhoviks (shadow entrepreneurs) who operated on the border of legality. Regular entrepreneurs simply had no infrastructure to emerge in post-Soviet Russia, and so the kinds of people who ended up with assets were particularly reprobate individuals. Essence adherents believe this was a deliberate attempt to turn Russia into the equivalent of a pirate economy, knowing that such economies do not last long.

'The Trust C.N. (Capitalism Now!) masters did not nurture a normal, imperfect capitalism as found in other nations. Instead, they fostered a criminal monster, a devouring pseudo-class. They managed to nurture it. The class started to devour everything, on the principle of “the appetite comes with eating”, and it has done so for the last twenty years. […] This wasn’t the will to build capitalism, rather the will to destroy Russia through criminal pseudo-capitalism, by transferring all functions of the ruling subject to this criminal pseudo-capitalism and transforming the state into a criminal monster.'

Irony seems to be lost on the organization when it condemns this criminal economy by declaring it to be a radical break from the past.

'This rejection of the past was complimented by a very specific image of a positive future. With every new round of catastrophe, it became clearer that the image of this future was more materialistic and anti-spiritual than ever before. And in this future, instead of “heaven on earth,” there are many small and tiny heavenly morsels, such as jeans, processed meats and the like.'

If I swap out “jeans” and “processed meats” for “pensions” and “public healthcare”, this statement could have been uttered by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn concerning the Soviet Union! There is something to be said about continuity from the Russian Empire to the Soviet Union, but the cognitive dissonance required to ignore the profound and bloody break with history that defined this period is staggering. Essence relies on the lame excuse of ‘time constraints’ to justify the evils of what Lenin did to Russia. I’m not buying it.

The manifesto declares categorically that it rejects the concept of an end of history, but then contradicts this by proclaiming a belief in progress. These two concepts are attached at the hip. One cannot speak of progress without positing an endpoint. You could walk for miles and miles, but without a destination, you have made no progress at all. Essence sets up a bizarre conspiracy theory about an alliance between phantom post-moderns and anti-moderns (using the example of the Deep State’s support of Islamic fundamentalists) that has as its intent the creation of a center-periphery global model. This, of course, implies the Deep State wants ISIS to succeed, when in reality, it wants nobody to succeed. As long as nobody succeeds, chaos reigns, and various interests can effectively exploit the situation.

Apparently though, this center-periphery will be the death of precious progress.

What is informative is that the manifesto draws a distinction between communism and liberalism with regards to beliefs about the evil of man. We know that reactionaries view man as fundamentally and irreversibly flawed, hence the need for authority. The manifesto correctly states that liberals believe evil is not really a fundamental factor of mankind, that it instead can be “properly organized”, via various mechanisms of liberty. It then gives the communist view, that man is evil, but that evil must be eradicated through the creation of the Soviet “new man”.

It’s compelling. Stupid, but compelling. Ultimately, this view is just another flavor of utopianism that is running away from the responsibility to face up to evil, acknowledge it, and chain it to spare society of its ravages.

What’s frustrating is that because the document is quite clear-eyed on the pre-modern era, it gives Tradition its due. See how it speaks of Tradition as a binding force, contra liberalism, that brings communities together.

'Tradition as the soul of a traditional society (recalling Pushkin’s “habit — the states’ soul”) gives rise to collectivism or communality. And vice-versa, the destruction of communality is the dismantling of traditional society.'

Nowhere is there an ounce of venom for feudal society. The piece simply glosses over the glaring question of why this force for communality could not have been renovated without revolution and mayhem. This paragraph is the killer:

'Figuratively speaking, traditional society is thrown into the furnace of the locomotive known as the Modern project. While traditional society exists, there is a furnace that keeps burning. You can keep throwing additional portions of this society into it, but when there is nothing left of traditional society, the furnace grows cold and the locomotive stops moving.'

Traditional society here is portrayed as a fuel source, something useful and full of vital energy, which is sacrificed on the altar of consumer capitalism as it encroaches upon ancient ways of life (modern China and India are given as an examples). Again however, one could just as easily point to communism engaging in exactly the same burning of fuel, especially since the manifesto mentions China.

It is a vivid imagining of the concept of the Afterglow coined by Peter Hitchens, namely that Modernity survives on borrowed time, on the crumbling ruins of Traditional remnants, and once they are gone, comfortable bourgeois life will collapse. Essence states that this dynamic will lead, nay is already leading, to the exhaustion of the West, which will be eclipsed by Asia, but goes on to say that Asia will in short order also exhaust itself. So in devouring Tradition, civilization signs its death warrant and rusts in an outland. The solution? Something akin to a neo-Soviet model apparently. Never once does the manifesto even entertain the possibility of getting more of this precious fuel, and not throwing it into a furnace next time. Why build a devouring furnace when you can build a garden? Maybe gardens are too oppressive.

The Essence of Time is an interesting movement, I will give it that. There is something attractive about its naked determination and revanchism. Indeed, a reactionary might see a little something of himself in its conviction that something deeply disordered is afoot, especially in his own context. However, despite demoting Marx from leading man to sound-effects guy, the stage production of communism is still mired in a profound immaturity regarding the future’s relationship with the past, as well as communism’s history of failure. At least they aren’t attacking Tradition anymore. Maybe that’s a step in the right direction.

I have to say that while Citadel makes some good points in my opinion about the EoT, he actually lays bare unconsciously some of the difficulty of being pre-modern in a post-modern world...

For me, this isn't the end all of the situation, and I feel that my own crisis is a mirror of the crisis of civilized mankind today, but it's high time the real ''Left'' and the real ''Right'' had this conversation.

[annatar1914]

I'm kind of ''frontloading'' my end of these sets of conversations if you will, setting up the dialogue so that we can be very clear about my primary concern; the end of the modern age and what will replace it in it's final phases of transition to... What exactly I don't know.

Was reading a bit of Ludwig von Mises in order to glean some ideas of where to go with this, and I saw this excerpt from his book; Liberalism. Mises, a classical Liberal and one of the leading minds of today's Libertarianism (along with Bastiat, Hayek, Rand, Friedman, and Rothbard, i'd say), has this to say about Fascism and it's struggle with Communism;

Now it cannot be denied that the only way one can offer effective resistance to violent assaults is by violence. Against the weapons of the Bolsheviks, weapons must be used in reprisal, and it would be a mistake to display weakness before murderers. No liberal has ever called this into question. What distinguishes liberal from Fascist political tactics is not a difference of opinion in regard to the necessity of using armed force to resist armed attackers, but a difference in the fundamental estimation of the role of violence in a struggle for power. The great danger threatening domestic policy from the side of Fascism lies in its complete faith in the decisive power of violence. In order to assure success, one must be imbued with the will to victory and always proceed violently. This is its highest principle. What happens, however, when one's opponent, similarly animated by the will to be victorious, acts just as violently? The result must be a battle, a civil war. The ultimate victor to emerge from such conflicts will be the faction strongest in number. In the long run, a minority—even if it is composed of the most capable and energetic—cannot succeed in resisting the majority. The decisive question, therefore, always remains: How does one obtain a majority for one's own party? This, however, is a purely intellectual matter. It is a victory that can be won only with the weapons of the intellect, never by force. The suppression of all opposition by sheer violence is a most unsuitable way to win adherents to one's cause. Resort to naked force—that is, without justification in terms of intellectual arguments accepted by public opinion—merely gains new friends for those whom one is thereby trying to combat. In a battle between force and an idea, the latter always prevails.

Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. But when the fresh impression of the crimes of the Bolsheviks has paled, the socialist program will once again exercise its power of attraction on the masses. For Fascism does nothing to combat it except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them. If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas. There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism.

It has often been said that nothing furthers a cause more than creating, martyrs for it. This is only approximately correct. What strengthens the cause of the persecuted faction is not the martyrdom of its adherents, but the fact that they are being attacked by force, and not by intellectual weapons. Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect—better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property. The next episode will be the victory of Communism. The ultimate outcome of the struggle, however, will not be decided by arms, but by ideas. It is ideas that group men into fighting factions, that press the weapons into their hands, and that determine against whom and for whom the weapons shall be used. It is they alone, and not arms, that, in the last analysis, turn the scales.

So much for the domestic policy of Fascism. That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one's own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone.

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

Fascism was merely a weapon of the System employed against those attacking that System (such as Communists and Socialists), whatever else it was qualitatively in the real world it was exactly that, the employment of the powers of the State to destroy that menace.

Now, while Fascism is a Capitalist Ideology of the State (an ''emergency makeshift'') and grew out of and employed pro forma the institutions if not the substance of classical Liberalism, Anarcho-Capitalism (which grew out of Classical Liberalism also) is an Ideology of Capitalism Itself as Power, without the mediation of the State, Power in private hands and all functions of the State having withered away. This could have only grown out of a situation in which the forces of Revolution have entirely collapsed, leaving no actual Fascism ''necessary'' anymore. It's but a short step from the idea that the State is formed from a ''Contract'' of private individuals allowing a government to carry out certain limited duties, to an idea that no contract need be entered into to form a State in the modern or traditional sense at all.

Whatever one's thoughts on the matter, the right or wrong of it, it appears to me that this ideology of Anarcho-Capitalism is going to grow and grow, can only grow and grow, as long as the situation of no real opposition remains to the present world order.


I knew that my long held material monism, it seems weird even though it's so strongly held. It's not quite exactly right though. This past week was the end of the Dormition fast in the Orthodox Christian Calendar, and reflecting on the Transfiguration of Our Lord and the Falling Asleep of the Mother of God (the only earthly but truly glorified bodies in Heaven, which is a Place), I cannot but help to be silent on the issue for good, and be satisfied in restraining my intellectual concupiscence and accept Mystery, Holy Mystery.

[annatar1914]

[Zag Note: Please do not make several posts in a row, combine them in one reply]

[starman2003]

Fascism was merely a weapon of the System employed against those attacking that System (such as Communists and Socialists)

Adolf was sometimes considered a tool of big business, the Junkers or others, but that was not true. As Trevor Roper put it, "in the end he ruled and ruined them all." Adolf had his own agenda, and the State bureaucracy dominated industry.

[annatar1914]

Adolf was sometimes considered a tool of big business, the Junkers or others, but that was not true. As Trevor Roper put it, "in the end he ruled and ruined them all." Adolf had his own agenda, and the State bureaucracy dominated industry.

I would not call Fascists absolutely ''tools'' of the individual Capitalists and big business concerns, but as saviors of the overall System measures have to be taken lest the whole thing collapse. Most Industrialists and Junkers understood this, out of fear for Communism/Socialism taking over. So ''tool'' is not so good an analogical term, as much as ''junkyard dog'' that frightens even it's owners and sometimes has to be put down if it turns on them, that's a better analogy.

The State Bureaucracy didn't ''dominate'' Industry, again too strong a analogical term, the membership of the State oversight boards and so forth were drawn from Industrial business concerns to begin with. Germany was at war after all, even though German industry was actually so free of the State that they didn't coordinate a total war effort until late in the conflict.

My point I was making was that I believe that while Fascism is the State being organized in such a way as to protect Capitalism from Revolution, even if that Capitalism must be re-organized to do so, Anarcho-Capitalism is Capitalism coming to believe that Revolution is done for and the State is impeding It's progress and must be abolished, that the State Itself tends towards Communism. Both are reactions to Communism/Socialism, in that Fascism is a protective attempt against Communism and it's set of beliefs, and Anarcho-Capitalism believes it is striking the very root of Communism itself.

[Political Interest]

Thank you, our conversation over the years has been a model of cordiality that I think others might gain by some slight emulation of it, lol.

It is easy to be cordial with polite and intelligent people. I'd say being polite and cordial even when someone disagrees with you is a sign of intelligence.

Very true. If we can allow the possibility that the Marxist critique of Capitalism is correct, it does not follow that we should embrace their economic and atheist/materialist reductionism that they carry with it.

Agreed. What is striking about Karl Marx is that he had a very materialist and supposedly scientific view of historical development. And arguably it was scientific, although in a purely material sense. But then he made reductionist statements about the nature of religion and did not seem to understand that his analysis was purely material. Therefore while it was an arguably astute critique of capitalism it was lacking in it's depth. But perhaps Marx was simply an economist? Human nature is not merely economic. Man is more than money and factories. To claim religion was the opiate of the masses was very ignorant.

The State is of course geared towards the ends of power, power of whoever the ruling elite is composed of. But for me, I feel that since the leaven of Christianity has indeed penetrated society, we have had an opportunity to fulfill the Greco-Roman political ideal, that of the rule of the common good and public trust over private interest and the rule of an elite that govern by virtue of advantages of private birth and/or wealth.

Sadly I fear that even the most ostensibly altruistic governments will always fall to material interest of the elites that rule them. And this situation can develop even when there was previously a purely ideological elite that was not very much interested in money or power.

Marx and Engels and the others saw themselves as Scientists of a new sort, but scientists nonetheless. Any true science is provisional in it's findings and necessarily cannot be ''dogmatic''. But human beings crave certainties and the language of the Marxists easily lends itself to dogmatic sectarianism.

In this sense the Marxists appear to be actually quite anti-Marxist. There appears to be an utter refusal to acknowledge the possiblity that some of Marx and Lenin's ideas were wrong.

Albert has alluded to this in other posts, but perhaps Marxism became a type of religion for those who did not want religion? And I have always heard the theory that Marxism became a type of secular Christianity. Albert and others also seem to have mentioned that one problem of this secular Christianity is that it produced problems which the actual Christianity did not.

My understanding as I grow in my Orthodox faith is that Dogmas primarily relate to Trinitarian and Christological theology, and incidentally to other things in descending order of relation. What I do know from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Symbol of the Christian Faith, is that God the Father is the ''Creator of Heaven and of Earth, of all things seen and unseen''. To me then that appears to say that all things are of some substantial form, even if we cannot perceive or even describe such Matter intelligibly in all cases.

Is there a debate within Orthodoxy about this subject? I can understand your point of view. However as I mentioned earlier, I have a tendency to be very careful to view spiritual matters in terms of material existence. I believe that to do so is in a sense simply not correct. I feel that the material world is lesser than the spiritual world. Of course I am not at all qualified to speak on this subject and will correct my opinion if it is wrong.

I am something of an empiricist and sensist myself, and my problem with the atheist materialists in that regard is that, frankly, we do not understand or have quite misinterpreted a great deal of what we think we ''know'' from our senses. They expect with some reason that every Christian is coming at them from an Idealist perspective, and so they automatically make these Cartesian distinctions as we modern men always do, such has been the influence of Rene Decartes.

This is very true. They think therefore they are but they did not yet have spiritual experiences or understand. They do not realise that not all of man's experience can be reduced to the material or physical senses. But again I am delving into the dichotomy of material and non-material.

My thinking is very direct and is (due to the influence of Blaise Pascal and the Jansenists) the following; one cannot know God unless one has through His graces been prepared to know Him. The whole Cosmos is infused with His Energies, His active superabundant life, and from these material things so ordered and pervaded by God we can infer a ''god of the philosophers and savants'', but not the ''God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob'' of Holy Scripture. He is known by personal experience alone.

It's the only way you can ''prove'' Him, your own encounter in person.

Perhaps this is the essence of faith in some sense? For me I have always just known. And the Cartesian or empiricist view of reality feels lacking. It does not cause me to doubt because the certainty of my faith is much greater than logic or argument. It is not possible to quantify one's faith or reduce it to argument. And at the end of the day, in spite of all the logical arguments of atheists, no matter how sophisticated, none of them can prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore the question itself defies their arguments. Richard Dawkins can never disprove the existence of God, no matter how intricate his ideas may be.

Would it be possible for you to elaborate on why we are unable to infer the existence of a "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" of Holy Scripture?

I think not, at least not on a conscious level, but I suspect we all have been influenced by errant Dualism to one degree or other. But Monism as you suggest has it's own dangers, Pantheism among other pitfalls.

Of course if my understanding is incorrect I am more than willing to change it, but my line of thinking is that we are living in a fallen world. The world is matter and therefore to embrace the world is a type of evil. And to choose matter or material existence over spirit is a type of unforgivable sin. But I am not an expert by any means.

However God did become incarnate in material form. Therefore perhaps my anti-material position is blapshemy? I must find out the correct position on this question, I think. And I must be very careful to mention that I do not uphold this with any stubborness. As soon as I learn that it is wrong I will change accordingly.

@Victoribus Spolia

I would respond to your post in this thread, but I fear we could take the thread off topic. I do intend to respond to you.

[annatar1914]

Hello PI, you said;

It is easy to be cordial with polite and intelligent people. I'd say being polite and cordial even when someone disagrees with you is a sign of intelligence.

I try to live up to that standard, anyways, with varying degrees of success.

Agreed. What is striking about Karl Marx is that he had a very materialist and supposedly scientific view of historical development. And arguably it was scientific, although in a purely material sense. But then he made reductionist statements about the nature of religion and did not seem to understand that his analysis was purely material. Therefore while it was an arguably astute critique of capitalism it was lacking in it's depth. But perhaps Marx was simply an economist? Human nature is not merely economic. Man is more than money and factories. To claim religion was the opiate of the masses was very ignorant.

Yes, it is quite striking, narrow, ignorant, and lacking in depth. But intelligent people can be guilty of that.

Sadly I fear that even the most ostensibly altruistic governments will always fall to material interest of the elites that rule them. And this situation can develop even when there was previously a purely ideological elite that was not very much interested in money or power.

Highlights the Christian anthropological truths about man. Man can be good, but is marred by evil unless assisted by God's grace helping them to live God's life within them.

In this sense the Marxists appear to be actually quite anti-Marxist. There appears to be an utter refusal to acknowledge the possiblity that some of Marx and Lenin's ideas were wrong.

Albert has alluded to this in other posts, but perhaps Marxism became a type of religion for those who did not want religion? And I have always heard the theory that Marxism became a type of secular Christianity. Albert and others also seem to have mentioned that one problem of this secular Christianity is that it produced problems which the actual Christianity did not.

Very true, Marxism (if not Socialism itself) has for some become a religion, an opiate all it's own. To me, it is a Secular Christian Heresy, A godless attempt to seize the Kingdom of Heaven and fulfill it right here on Earth.

Is there a debate within Orthodoxy about this subject? I can understand your point of view. However as I mentioned earlier, I have a tendency to be very careful to view spiritual matters in terms of material existence. I believe that to do so is in a sense simply not correct. I feel that the material world is lesser than the spiritual world. Of course I am not at all qualified to speak on this subject and will correct my opinion if it is wrong.

Oh, I think that you are entirely correct my friend, and armed with the proper attitude. In Orthodoxy, it seems that there is theological opinion about things that are not directly Trinitarian or Christological themselves, such as the issue about the ''Aerial Toll Houses'' and whether they exist or not for example. And chances are that because they don't directly relate to true Dogma, the matter will likely rest on that level of ''mere'' opinion. Some of these ''opinions'' are held by good people, and are probably edifying on some spiritual level. I figure we'll all find out sooner or later.

So while i'm sure that it is absolutely of Faith that Heaven is a place, Hell is a place, and beings are ''there'' and not ''here'', and therefore occupy and take up space in some manner unknown to us, then I call it ''material'', as I have no idea how it can be otherwise. I will of course submit to the Fathers and Councils of the Orthodox Faith, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but i'll be like that peasant who sees wings on the six-winged and many eyed Angels and believes that is pretty much how they look when they deign to be seen that way by men.

I may be becoming increasingly ignorant for sure, but anything else increasingly reeks of dead Scholasticism and dry Philosophy to me. I'm a simple young child in Orthodoxy. How can there be Mind and Thought and Will, without extension and divisibility? I don't know, and I guess I'll have to be alright with not knowing just yet. I do think some mental constructs though, can be harmful if they scandalize others who cannot make distinctions between opinions taught by good people with authority(though they do have more credibility, if deigned a Saint, a Holy One of God), and Dogma.

This is very true. They think therefore they are but they did not yet have spiritual experiences or understand. They do not realise that not all of man's experience can be reduced to the material or physical senses. But again I am delving into the dichotomy of material and non-material.

Again, you're right I think, there's a dichotomy, but I believe it's more a case of ''seen'' and sensed, and ''unseen'' and un-sensed, than it is of ''material'' and ''non-material''. Scholastics and Idealists literally posit beings that do not occupy space and have no form, are just thoughts and actions and wills, yet in some sense real and alive.

I have trouble with that, and if there's anyone that can correct me on it, I'd be happy to chat with them about it. It's not a huge issue, I still will always trust in God.

Perhaps this is the essence of faith in some sense? For me I have always just known. And the Cartesian or empiricist view of reality feels lacking. It does not cause me to doubt because the certainty of my faith is much greater than logic or argument. It is not possible to quantify one's faith or reduce it to argument. And at the end of the day, in spite of all the logical arguments of atheists, no matter how sophisticated, none of them can prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore the question itself defies their arguments. Richard Dawkins can never disprove the existence of God, no matter how intricate his ideas may be.

I think it is the essence of Faith, absolutely. Because while there is nothing truly unreasonable in Christianity, once the basic truths are accepted, one has to still ''believe'', in order to ''understand'', to paraphrase Blessed Augustine.

Would it be possible for you to elaborate on why we are unable to infer the existence of a "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" of Holy Scripture?

Sure. While it's always been possible to rationally infer a ''God'' on the part of clever philosophers, to posit a ''god'' who creates everything, sets everything into motion, maintains the cosmos in existence, etc... That ''God'' is not a God Who loves, is a Person (s) with Whom one can have a relationship, necessarily. This is why the ''God'' of the Medieval Scholastics seems so remote, because they cobbled together their Ideas drawn from the Greco-Roman thinkers and conformed Him to them, or tried to.

Of course if my understanding is incorrect I am more than willing to change it, but my line of thinking is that we are living in a fallen world. The world is matter and therefore to embrace the world is a type of evil. And to choose matter or material existence over spirit is a type of unforgivable sin. But I am not an expert by any means.

Well, matter is good, not as good as ''spirit'' (which i'll call that energy from the unknown existence), but it is secondary to the love of God Himself in Three Persons. We are called to be drawn to Him and caught up into His life He lives within Himself, to be gods ourselves in a limited sense. But God in redeeming us will also redeem matter, and already has in a limited way which is for example why we can even portray Christ in Icons, etc...

That's pretty awesome! Pretty cool and even terrifying, but still really exalted and exalting.

However God did become incarnate in material form. Therefore perhaps my anti-material position is blapshemy? I must find out the correct position on this question, I think. And I must be very careful to mention that I do not uphold this with any stubborness. As soon as I learn that it is wrong I will change accordingly.

If you entirely hated matter and thought it was evil, i'd have that conversation with you. But I do not think that you are seeing it that way, my friend.

@Victoribus Spolia

I would respond to your post in this thread, but I fear we could take the thread off topic. I do intend to respond to you.

Not sure you would be taking things off topic, I think the topic is broad enough, lol. Give it a shot:-)

[starman2003]

The State Bureaucracy didn't ''dominate'' Industry, again too strong a analogical term,

They established so many rules and regulations one could say it was socialism in all but name. Rand once said the nazis were cleverer than the communists since what mattered was not the issue of ownership but the issue of control.

the membership of the State oversight boards and so forth were drawn from Industrial business concerns to begin with.

I think they were drawn from the party.

Germany was at war after all, even though German industry was actually so free of the State that they didn't coordinate a total war effort until late in the conflict.

That wasn't due to industry being free of the State; hardly anything in the reich was. The nazis were just concerned that if production of civilian goods fell too much, it might provoke popular discontent, which had affected the Kaiser's regime. It also reflected overoptimism about the war, until Stalingrad served as a "wake up call."

My point I was making was that I believe that while Fascism is the State being organized in such a way as to protect Capitalism from Revolution, even if that Capitalism must be re-organized to do so, Anarcho-Capitalism is Capitalism coming to believe that Revolution is done for and the State is impeding It's progress and must be abolished, that the State Itself tends towards Communism. Both are reactions to Communism/Socialism, in that Fascism is a protective attempt against Communism and it's set of beliefs, and Anarcho-Capitalism believes it is striking the very root of Communism itself.

The fascists saw themselves as much more than just protectors of capitalism. The idea was to maximize the power of the State for its own sake, or for hegemonization. What you say about anarcho-capitalism may be true, but it's not reality and I don't think it will be.

[annatar1914]

Starman, you said;

They established so many rules and regulations one could say it was socialism in all but name.

''rules and regulations'' and Bureaucracy are a condition of Modernity, universal in scope, not just Socialism.

Rand once said the nazis were cleverer than the communists since what mattered was not the issue of ownership but the issue of control.

She might have said that coming from her perspective of Objectivism, and the Nazis may have believed that themselves, but it was not so, especially with Fascism as a larger phenomena.

I think they were drawn from the party.

The NSDAP was organized as a privatized mirror of the State, but also business, from it's earliest days, and it's membership was already full of men who had experience as industrialists, economists, technocrats, military men, scientists, etc... From the lists I read a few years back, the membership of these NSDAP state boards resembled in composition the revolving door between Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, and Washington DC.

That wasn't due to industry being free of the State; hardly anything in the reich was. The nazis were just concerned that if production of civilian goods fell too much, it might provoke popular discontent, which had affected the Kaiser's regime. It also reflected overoptimism about the war, until Stalingrad served as a "wake up call."

Civilian industry was firmly pro-Hitler, even more than it was pro-NSDAP, and you could say that that ''optimism'' about the war-fanaticism, actually-made Statist control un-necessary.

The fascists saw themselves as much more than just protectors of capitalism.

I'm as much if not more so interested in what people ''are'', more than what they think they are. In every case, they were exactly the defenders of Capitalism they were wished to be. They would have not gotten anywhere without Reactionary support.

The idea was to maximize the power of the State for its own sake, or for hegemonization.

In no Fascistic country has that total Statism existed, power was more diffuse and multipolar in those countries than they perhaps wished, but in each case (interestingly enough) such power was shared with reactionary elements... Like Mussolini sharing power with the King Victor Emmanuel III and having the Lateran Concordat with the Vatican, Hitler with the Junkers and Industrialists and the Wehrmacht High Command, etc..Not to mention the situation with Fascists today, and in countries where they had strong parties but the reactionaries kept them away from power, like Hungary with the Arrow Cross, kept from power by Admiral Horthy, and the Legion of St. Michael the Archangel/the Iron Guard, Codreanu's men kept from power by Marshal Antonescu and King Carol in Romania.

What you say about anarcho-capitalism may be true, but it's not reality and I don't think it will be.

What's stopping it, in your opinion?

[starman2003]

Starman, you said;
''rules and regulations'' and Bureaucracy are a condition of Modernity, universal in scope, not just Socialism.

But not to the degree seen in totalitarian states.

She might have said that coming from her perspective of Objectivism, and the Nazis may have believed that themselves, but it was not so, especially with Fascism as a larger phenomena.

Ay least in the reich the State was supreme.

The NSDAP was organized as a privatized mirror of the State, but also business, from it's earliest days, and it's membership was already full of men who had experience as industrialists, economists, technocrats, military men, scientists, etc...

Fascism was said to be "a movement for lower middle class failures," like Goebbels, not winners.

Civilian industry was firmly pro-Hitler, even more than it was pro-NSDAP, and you could say that that ''optimism'' about the war-fanaticism, actually-made Statist control un-necessary.

But the masses were thought to demand high rates of consumer output, and the regime had to switch to a total war economy.

I'm as much if not more so interested in what people ''are'', more than what they think they are. In every case, they were exactly the defenders of Capitalism they were wished to be. They would have not gotten anywhere without Reactionary support.

Initially the nazis needed the support of the Junker military elite. And they did liquidate Roehm. But in time they dominated the old traditional elites, some wound up hanging from piano wire after the failed plot of '44. Even before then, Adolf made himself the supreme commander with absolute power. He was running the war and sacked junker generals who displeased him in any way.
The nazis were very serious about establishing hegemony, and certainly tried hard, as did Mussolini, albeit with far less success.

In no Fascistic country has that total Statism existed, power was more diffuse and multipolar in those countries than they perhaps wished, but in each case (interestingly enough) such power was shared with reactionary elements...

Initially in the reich but not for long...

What's stopping it, in your opinion?

I don't see it in any advanced society on Earth. I've long thought crises will topple the existing democracy, but if, as I predict, the result is authoritarianism, we'll move even farther from anarch capitalism.

[annatar1914]

Hello Starman2003, I had made a comment about bureaucracy and rules and regulation being a universal fact of modern life in every society, but you said;

But not to the degree seen in totalitarian states.

I would put to you this observation; rarely has there ever been in modern times a ''Totalitarian'' state in the sense of the term originally coined by Mussolini;

"The fascist conception of state is all-embracing; outside it no human or spiritual values may exist, much less have any value. Thus understood fascism is totalitarian''

This was in reality never the case. Maybe today in some place like North Korea (and even then I can think of an exception), but beyond that country's peculiar circumstances I can't think of any time or place in which genuine ''Totalitarian'' States existed.

Ay least in the reich the State was supreme.

In Nazi Germany, Hitler was supreme and he ruled by an extra-constitutional personal role, that of the ''Fuhrer''. The State, the Party, the Military, the Security services, they all were divided and competing for power and there was basically a reign of chaos from beginning to end of that regime.

The ''State'', strictly speaking, had practically ceased to exist after the raft of emergency decrees that had placed Hitler at the helm.

Fascism was said to be "a movement for lower middle class failures," like Goebbels, not winners.

Goes to my earlier comments about Fascism being a emergency support for Capitalism; the Petit Bourgeoisie are forced downwards into the ranks of the Proletariat by economic crisis and are easily turned towards Fascism to fix the System, change it, instead of replacing it altogether. However, there were Aristocrats and Industrialists and high ranking military men in the NSDAP.

But the masses were thought to demand high rates of consumer output, and the regime had to switch to a total war economy.

The German Fascists remembered the outcome of WWI, when the masses turned against the war effort and revolution was in the streets.

Initially the nazis needed the support of the Junker military elite. And they did liquidate Roehm. But in time they dominated the old traditional elites, some wound up hanging from piano wire after the failed plot of '44. Even before then, Adolf made himself the supreme commander with absolute power. He was running the war and sacked junker generals who displeased him in any way.
The nazis were very serious about establishing hegemony, and certainly tried hard, as did Mussolini, albeit with far less success.

This is an interesting aspect of the final stages of Fascism during the Great Patriotic War, when Hitler and Mussolini both turned increasingly Leftward as time went on and the war was turning against the Axis powers. The Capitalists didn't turn so much against the Third Reich, as the Aristocracy and Reactionaries did.

Initially in the reich but not for long...

And still the Reactionaries managed to attempt a Coup late in the war. It's interesting how desperate and probably foolish this was, as the Red Army was at that very moment accomplishing the destruction of Army Group Centre, totally demolishing 20 German divisions about the time Stauffenburg's bomb went off. And the Anglo-American forces were in Normandy.

:) I don't see it in any advanced society on Earth. I've long thought crises will topple the existing democracy, but if, as I predict, the result is authoritarianism, we'll move even farther from anarch capitalism.

I believe that Anarcho-Capitalism has a good future ahead of it, politically speaking. In fact, for reasons I'll go into soon, I think the present and near future Right is and will be in effect an Alliance of Fascistic and Anarcho-Capitalistic elements, much as the Left in the 1920's and 1930's was a Alliance of the Communists/Socialists and Anarcho-Communists.

[starman2003]

Hello Starman2003

Hello.

[rarely has there ever been in modern times a ''Totalitarian'' state in the sense of the term

This was in reality never the case.

Rarely or never?

Maybe today in some place like North Korea (and even then I can think of an exception), but beyond that country's peculiar circumstances I can't think of any time or place in which genuine ''Totalitarian'' States existed.

Mauryan India, Sparta, Stalin's USSR. Of course no system really works 100% the way it's supposed to, but a number of states have come "close enough."

In Nazi Germany, Hitler was supreme and he ruled by an extra-constitutional personal role, that of the ''Fuhrer''. The State, the Party, the Military, the Security services, they all were divided and competing for power and there was basically a reign of chaos from beginning to end of that regime.

The ''State'', strictly speaking, had practically ceased to exist after the raft of emergency decrees that had placed Hitler at the helm.

The State and the party were practically one. Hitler was supreme but embodied the State.

The German Fascists remembered the outcome of WWI, when the masses turned against the war effort and revolution was in the streets.

Sure, but dunno if the lack of a total war economy was really essential prior to '43. There wasn't any breakdown internally in the last two years of the war despite conditions becoming far worse than in 1918.

And still the Reactionaries managed to attempt a Coup late in the war.

Dunno if you could still call them that. Stauffenberg was dissatisfied with the kind of conservative regime favored by others in the movement and wanted a "brilliant socialist" included.

It's interesting how desperate and probably foolish this was, as the Red Army was at that very moment accomplishing the destruction of Army Group Centre, totally demolishing 20 German divisions about the time Stauffenburg's bomb went off. And the Anglo-American forces were in Normandy.

Even before Bagratian got underway, on the basis of the Normandy setback, some plotters wondered if there was any point in going ahead with their plans. 'If they succeeded they would only be blamed for bringing on the final catastrophe." Stauffenberg insisted they go on; even if they failed they'd show there was an anti-nazi element in Germany.

I believe that Anarcho-Capitalism has a good future ahead of it, politically speaking. In fact, for reasons I'll go into soon, I think the present and near future Right is and will be in effect an Alliance of Fascistic and Anarcho-Capitalistic elements...

I have some difficulty imagining fascists and anarchists getting together. Pretty strange bedfellows.

[Potemkin]

I have some difficulty imagining fascists and anarchists getting together. Pretty strange bedfellows.

Anarchists and capitalists are pretty strange bedfellows too, historically speaking.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Annatar, my friend, you wrote:

If I may, I'd like to ask you to expand upon this answer, because i'm of the opinion even when I was Socialistic, that ''Welfarism'' is not ''Socialism'', although I am well aware that the belief that this is so is very much an American political phenomena on the American Right. I do believe you are right, regarding what happens to liberal social contract states, but to me it doesn't necessarily follow that this is their path to Socialism.

Welfarism is not socialism, but it tends towards it. All representative governements tend this way, but I will expand on my point as you quoted it, for I recently expanded on it to someone else:

I. What is anti-liberty about the state in general as it applies to democracy specifically.

1. In a state of nature I have absolute liberty in the sense that no third party is restraining my free association. Whether other individuals violate my rights is a separate matter altogether and it is up to my prerogative to defend those rights by my own means. This itself is voluntary.

I must voluntarily choose to defend myself based on my own means if I want to preserve my own natural rights.

2. States exist as a third party monopolist of coercion, their institution is contrary to liberty in the sense that by being under a state, I have given up my own right to coerce wrongs done against me, I have de facto surrendered this right to the state and not only did I get nothing in exchange (except, perhaps, convenience), but I am not also forced to pay for this loss of natural rights via taxation. Not to mention, that giving the state such powers always endangers my other future liberties.

3. All states are involuntary associations in this sense, but in regards to democracy one may be tempted to say that membership in that social contract is "voluntary" because the government is designed as representative of the will of the governed; however, this is only true (at best) of majority vote, not specific and voluntary assent. Since I can remember, I have had to pay taxes that I did not consent to paying. No one asked me specifically if I wanted the services that these taxes pay for, nor did I get a choice in the matter when a % of my money was taken from me to pay for such.

On a scale of free or not-free, what is more free? The choice to pay or not pay for what I want, or being coerced under threat of force to pay for things that I did not choose?

The answer is obvious.

II. what is anti-liberty about democracy in particular.

1. to begin this section, you must understand that monarchy is superior to the social contract in regards to personal liberty for several reasons and I will argue these not as a defense of going back to monarchy per se, but only to show the particular anti-liberty aspect of all social contract governments including all parliamentary democracies.

2. It is a universal phenomena that wars after the assent of democracy in the west (WWI and on) were the bloodiest in human history, that spending, debt, and taxes are all higher than any other time in human history, and that the regulatory state is larger and more micro-managing than any other time in human history. These things are the result of an internal necessity in democratic governments that are not true of monarchies. Let me explain now in the following.

3. Monarchies were privately owned by a ruling family who was personally liable for his own estate. Monarchs did not engage in debt-accrual and deficit spending in a manner even remotely commensurate to modern social contract states because a monarch was personally liable for the state as his own property. Likewise, the value of his currency, government, property etc., were all based on his actions as a sovereign. Thus, a king was not only personally liable for his kingdom, but his own capital value was dependent on his actions.

In contrast, social contracts typically have representatives that serve terms and they are not personally liable for the debts they vote on and the capital value of the state is not "intrinsically" connected in their own minds to their own property, and so they tend to spend with impunity and raise deficits. This is because a representative's salary and influence is dependent on a popularity contest won by votes. Thus, representatives tend to offer more benefits while also showing a reluctance to raise taxes. Thus, democracies will predictably increase debts, devaluing the capital value of the state, and will have to raise some taxes just to keep from defaulting. Taxation, welfare programs, and increasing debts and debased currencies are hindrances to personal liberty (something I hope I shouldn't have to explain to a libertarian, of any stripe).

4. Monarchies had to personally hire their armies from their own purse because excessive taxation and oppression put them at risk of being overthrown. Hence, monarchies tend to wage smaller wars over concrete goals regarding territorial disputes etc., such wars are less gruesome as they are wars which are often fought between noble families that are usually related by marriage in some manner (so certain lines aren't likely to be crossed regarding cruelty etc)., lastly, monarchs are not as likely to piss of the nobility in their own lands with excessive taxes (and thus excessive wars etc), because it puts their own family and estate at risk.

By contrast, a representative governement has not nearly so much to lose in waging expensive wars, raising taxes, and infringing upon rights, for representatives are not likely to lose their own life, estate, or family like a deposed king would. Thus, representatives having no familial relationship to the democracies of other nations, and able to raise massive armies on public debt via outrageous taxes, can wage likewise massive and impersonal wars.

The rights of citizens via more taxes and regulations at worse can only lead to a party being temporarily deposed until the next voting cycle.

All of this is predictable given human nature (praxeology).

Hence democracies tend towards the increased growth of the state because personal liability and private ownership is removed from the principle of governance that existed under monarchy. Thus states can increase taxes, debts, deficits, wars, military size, and regulations in a way that was impossible even under even the absolutist monarchs. Do you really think Louis XIV could have survived had he passed a decree equivalent to America's prohibition on alcohol? He would have been sent to guillotine within 48 hours because he was responsible and would have been seen as such (rightfully so). Not so easy in a republic, for the masses are not likely going to track down 200 representatives, not all of which voted for the measure, and decapitate them, especially when they are temporarily in office via terms and will justly rebut; "well you voted me in, so its partly your fault!"

Please assess the argument to see the point, the expansion of the state is implicit in the idea of the social contract (public ownership).

Could it not be the case that if everything belongs by right to the Emperor, for example, than the Emperor could dispose of his land exactly as he pleases, even setting up a Socialistic type arrangement with the people of his land? Could you define what manner of ''liability'' it would be to him, if by his sovereignty he was above any legal arrangement whatsoever, as per legal thinkers like Carl Schmidtt?

This is the idea behind both Fascism and imperialism, the emperor or dictator is the embodiment of the people, of the social contract. Whereas the social contract began as a representative government as it became decadent and progressed closer an closer to socialism, the reactionary movement of traditionalists and aristocrats to restore the "old ways" leads NOT to the abolition of the social contract state altogether, but instead of co-opting the social contract under a super executive head or strong-man.

@starman2003 was correct to assert this tenet of far-right ideology, Hitler was the embodiment and ultimate will of the German volk, the party, and the state itself.

This is different than monarchy, monarchy is private ownership and liability of a family that has presumed rights and limitations; the emperor or the fuhrer is regarded as the source of rights and he does not merely own aspects of government as part of his own estate, rather, all is his and nothing really belongs to anyone else. This is not the doctrine of monarchy or private property at all.

This is why fascism is a reactionary appropriation of the social contract; whereas, socialism is its the inevitable goal of social contracts, and ruin is the ultimate fate of both.

If it is, I'd like to know where this is the case. It may also be that my own ideas regarding Idealism have been expressed ambiguously and lack a certain clarity.

.......Well, it isn't Pantheism, if that is your concern, and it primarily involves Creation, and not the Creator.

......I don't know if I can say that I ''brag'' about them, Tertullian and Milton, as that my thinking in this instance is close to theirs.

.......But in this particular instance, materiality, I would venture to guess that most Christians alive in his time and before believed with John Milton that even the things and beings that are ordinarily invisible to us still possess a measure of corporeality, of divisibility and extension in three dimensions. He also inclined, as did they, to pre-Copernican ideas on Cosmology as well. He threw quite a bit of the baby out with the bathwater, but not all.

My problem with your understanding of idealism was regarding to how you referred to its "substantiality." The belief in something being colloquially substantial is affirmed in idealism. Note the remarks of yours I addressed in bold. Corporeality, divisibility, extension, solidity, density, etc., are all sensible and therefore in the mind. They are ideal.

What idealism denies is that anything exists independent of ANY mind. Christianity is at odds with materialism, because materialism posits a mind-independent substance that is causally efficacious, philosophically fundamentally, properly basic, and even eternal. All of this is horseshit contrary to the Scriptures. Nothing exists outside of God's knowledge and express decree, NOTHING. this alone makes materialism impossible for nothing is causally efficacious outside of His will in a primary sense and nothing is independent of His mind.

Likewise, if you deny that God is material, then you cannot be a materialist anyway, you must at least be a dualist.

Just some thoughts for you to consider brother.

@Political Interest

I am awaiting your response with all patience and eager anticipation.

I don't think we'll see a real collapse of democracy until maybe midcentury.

Thats not really that far off.....

I have some difficulty imagining fascists and anarchists getting together. Pretty strange bedfellows.

Anarcho-Capitalists and fascists are both traditionalists, the former realized that traditionalism is best served in a natural state as it is man's natural function to act in a manner that we might call traditional or patriarchal. Fascists on the other hand attempt to recover traditionalism by appropriating the very state that killed traditionalism and using it restore such values by policies and programs.

Anarchists and capitalists are pretty strange bedfellows too, historically speaking.

Only because cronyism became the herald of property and markets, regardless of the oxymoronic character of such at base.

[annatar1914]

Hello again starman2003, let's continue, and i'll add my dialogue with Victoribus Spolia to my larger response;

Regarding actual real life ''Totalitarianism'' let me clarify as to whether it existed...

Rarely or never?

I'd say it rarely even came close, any example often touted as ''totalitarianism'', and never to the point that any example could be used to illustrate such a fictitious type system. It is worth only propaganda.

Mauryan India, Sparta, Stalin's USSR. Of course no system really works 100% the way it's supposed to, but a number of states have come "close enough."

Too vague for me. Regarding Hitler and the State, etc, during the Third Reich;

The State and the party were practically one. Hitler was supreme but embodied the State.

I would say that the State organs shrunk to vestigial remnants forced to compete with private organizations such as the NSDAP, the SS/SD, and the Military, which was a power unto itself. The only thing or person holding all these varied organizations together was the personal rather than constitutional rule of Adolf Hitler.

Sure, but dunno if the lack of a total war economy was really essential prior to '43. There wasn't any breakdown internally in the last two years of the war despite conditions becoming far worse than in 1918.

''internally'', perhaps not, the propaganda organs and the ideology of Nazism had done their work pretty well from 1933 on. But i'd go further and say that the failure to convert to a total war economy from the start was just one more thing that doomed Nazi Germany, among numerous other reasons.

Dunno if you could still call them that. Stauffenberg was dissatisfied with the kind of conservative regime favored by others in the movement and wanted a "brilliant socialist" included.

Yes, I was actually surprised when I saw the Soviet WWII series ''Liberation'' that came out in 1970 I think, in which Stauffenberg mentions that very thing. A disciple of Stefan George, Stauffenburg was more a Conservative Revolutionary like Spengler than a flat out reactionary.

The rest were men of uneven quality, Staffenberg had to be everywhere for the coup to even have a chance, and this however also doomed the plot.

And their conspiracy had it worked coming as it did during ''Bagration'', would have had really interesting effects on the war, which would have gone on;

Even before Bagratian got underway, on the basis of the Normandy setback, some plotters wondered if there was any point in going ahead with their plans. 'If they succeeded they would only be blamed for bringing on the final catastrophe." Stauffenberg insisted they go on; even if they failed they'd show there was an anti-nazi element in Germany.

I honestly don't have much use for the July 20th plotters, not sure why.

I have some difficulty imagining fascists and anarchists getting together. Pretty strange bedfellows.

As I indicated, if Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists could get along somewhat during the 1920's and 1930's as an Alliance, until it did indeed fall apart, there can be an Alliance-and there is-between Anarchist Capitalists and Fascists... And indeed is even if nobody is going to call themselves as such.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victoribus Spolia, you replied;

Welfarism is not socialism, but it tends towards it.

Problem is VS, before I even consider what you're saying personally, I must say that I don't know of any old-school Communist or Socialist writer of any consequence that gives a shit about ''Welfarism'', saying that it is a means of dulling and obscuring the reality of the working man's exploitation, and cannot lead to anything only just a borrowing of time before the final collapse of the Capitalist system. However, I am not by any means a standard Communist or Socialist, and so I guardedly will examine the evidence proffered that such things lead to revolution and Communism/Socialism

All representative governements tend this way, but I will expand on my point as you quoted it, for I recently expanded on it to someone else:

Sure, let's examine it;

I. What is anti-liberty about the state in general as it applies to democracy specifically.

Depends on how the State is employed as a tool/weapon, because let's be frank and call it what it is, while others might quibble.

1. In a state of nature I have absolute liberty in the sense that no third party is restraining my free association. Whether other individuals violate my rights is a separate matter altogether and it is up to my prerogative to defend those rights by my own means. This itself is voluntary.

Is this to be considered separate or inclusive of the Church's teaching on liberty/free will?

I must voluntarily choose to defend myself based on my own means if I want to preserve my own natural rights.

Looks like we'll have to get into a discussion on ''natural rights'', but that still belongs entirely within the loose parameters of this thread.

2. States exist as a third party monopolist of coercion, their institution is contrary to liberty in the sense that by being under a state, I have given up my own right to coerce wrongs done against me, I have de facto surrendered this right to the state and not only did I get nothing in exchange (except, perhaps, convenience), but I am not also forced to pay for this loss of natural rights via taxation. Not to mention, that giving the state such powers always endangers my other future liberties.

3. All states are involuntary associations in this sense, but in regards to democracy one may be tempted to say that membership in that social contract is "voluntary" because the government is designed as representative of the will of the governed; however, this is only true (at best) of majority vote, not specific and voluntary assent. Since I can remember, I have had to pay taxes that I did not consent to paying. No one asked me specifically if I wanted the services that these taxes pay for, nor did I get a choice in the matter when a % of my money was taken from me to pay for such.

On a scale of free or not-free, what is more free? The choice to pay or not pay for what I want, or being coerced under threat of force to pay for things that I did not choose?

The answer is obvious.

Only predicated on certain assumptions about human freedom to begin with. As an ''Augustinian'' of a sort within Orthodoxy, I am basically a Compatibilist if I were to use a philosophical term, and so my ideas on human freedoms are not exactly what others on this forum might expect or even take for granted as a tautology.

II. what is anti-liberty about democracy in particular.

1. to begin this section, you must understand that monarchy is superior to the social contract in regards to personal liberty for several reasons and I will argue these not as a defense of going back to monarchy per se, but only to show the particular anti-liberty aspect of all social contract governments including all parliamentary democracies.

Fair enough, let's read on;

2. It is a universal phenomena that wars after the assent of democracy in the west (WWI and on) were the bloodiest in human history, that spending, debt, and taxes are all higher than any other time in human history, and that the regulatory state is larger and more micro-managing than any other time in human history. These things are the result of an internal necessity in democratic governments that are not true of monarchies. Let me explain now in the following.

Agree with the war part, we'll see about any 'internal necessity' mechanism within democracies.

3. Monarchies were privately owned by a ruling family who was personally liable for his own estate. Monarchs did not engage in debt-accrual and deficit spending in a manner even remotely commensurate to modern social contract states because a monarch was personally liable for the state as his own property. Likewise, the value of his currency, government, property etc., were all based on his actions as a sovereign. Thus, a king was not only personally liable for his kingdom, but his own capital value was dependent on his actions.

This is true of monarchies, but interestingly enough also of actual Socialist societies, where debt-accrual and deficit spending basically do not exist within the system itself.

In contrast, social contracts typically have representatives that serve terms and they are not personally liable for the debts they vote on and the capital value of the state is not "intrinsically" connected in their own minds to their own property, and so they tend to spend with impunity and raise deficits. This is because a representative's salary and influence is dependent on a popularity contest won by votes. Thus, representatives tend to offer more benefits while also showing a reluctance to raise taxes. Thus, democracies will predictably increase debts, devaluing the capital value of the state, and will have to raise some taxes just to keep from defaulting. Taxation, welfare programs, and increasing debts and debased currencies are hindrances to personal liberty (something I hope I shouldn't have to explain to a libertarian, of any stripe).

A honest and genuine Socialist would have to agree, although to them there are more serious problems than these. After all, we have to ask what kind of System does such a State exist within, what is it's economic basis?

4. Monarchies had to personally hire their armies from their own purse because excessive taxation and oppression put them at risk of being overthrown. Hence, monarchies tend to wage smaller wars over concrete goals regarding territorial disputes etc., such wars are less gruesome as they are wars which are often fought between noble families that are usually related by marriage in some manner (so certain lines aren't likely to be crossed regarding cruelty etc)., lastly, monarchs are not as likely to piss of the nobility in their own lands with excessive taxes (and thus excessive wars etc), because it puts their own family and estate at risk.

I sense the influence of Hans Hermann Hoppe, am I correct? Not that he or you are incorrect about a comparison between Monarchy and Democracy, Democracy comes out a clear loser in the exchange. But what about an illiberal Socialist Republic?

By contrast, a representative governement has not nearly so much to lose in waging expensive wars, raising taxes, and infringing upon rights, for representatives are not likely to lose their own life, estate, or family like a deposed king would. Thus, representatives having no familial relationship to the democracies of other nations, and able to raise massive armies on public debt via outrageous taxes, can wage likewise massive and impersonal wars.

Yes, Bourgeoisie Democracies are full of contradictions, not sure if they can be corrected by slow organic development or if there has to be some sort of crisis...

The rights of citizens via more taxes and regulations at worse can only lead to a party being temporarily deposed until the next voting cycle.

All of this is predictable given human nature (praxeology).

Indeed the science of how people act and react.

Hence democracies tend towards the increased growth of the state because personal liability and private ownership is removed from the principle of governance that existed under monarchy. Thus states can increase taxes, debts, deficits, wars, military size, and regulations in a way that was impossible even under even the absolutist monarchs. Do you really think Louis XIV could have survived had he passed a decree equivalent to America's prohibition on alcohol? He would have been sent to guillotine within 48 hours because he was responsible and would have been seen as such (rightfully so). Not so easy in a republic, for the masses are not likely going to track down 200 representatives, not all of which voted for the measure, and decapitate them, especially when they are temporarily in office via terms and will justly rebut; "well you voted me in, so its partly your fault!"

You sure about that ''not likely to track down 200 representatives... and decapitate them"?

Please assess the argument to see the point, the expansion of the state is implicit in the idea of the social contract (public ownership).

I think it still remains to be seen that any ''Social Contract'' necessarily leads to expropriation of the private ownership of the means of production. A die hard Commie would say that the ''Social Contract'' is a bullshit myth fed the people, a fiction that enables the workers to endure their exploitation, a genuine example of the ''opiate of the people'' in the form of a civic religion.

I haven't made up my mind yet, we'll have to look into this further and deeper I think.

In response to my ideas of in effect a ''Socialist'' Emperor/Monarch, you said Victoribus Spolia that;

This is the idea behind both Fascism and imperialism, the emperor or dictator is the embodiment of the people, of the social contract. Whereas the social contract began as a representative government as it became decadent and progressed closer an closer to socialism, the reactionary movement of traditionalists and aristocrats to restore the "old ways" leads NOT to the abolition of the social contract state altogether, but instead of co-opting the social contract under a super executive head or strong-man.

I can perhaps agree to seeing that it is those events that do eventually happen, without necessarily subscribing to your characterization of those same events. That's where this is interesting; we generally agree on what will happen...

@starman2003 was correct to assert this tenet of far-right ideology, Hitler was the embodiment and ultimate will of the German volk, the party, and the state itself.

But do you see where I and others in recent years can look at that period and clearly notice a weakening and diminishment of the State proper, in it's modern sense?

This is different than monarchy, monarchy is private ownership and liability of a family that has presumed rights and limitations; the emperor or the fuhrer is regarded as the source of rights and he does not merely own aspects of government as part of his own estate, rather, all is his and nothing really belongs to anyone else. This is not the doctrine of monarchy or private property at all.

Sure, Despotism of an Barbaric sort politically is what you're talking about I think, distinguished from an Autocracy though which does have certain limitations, limitations in a Christian society for example.

This is why fascism is a reactionary appropriation of the social contract; whereas, socialism is its the inevitable goal of social contracts, and ruin is the ultimate fate of both.

As I go further along in this thread, we'll have to determine that.

My problem with your understanding of idealism was regarding to how you referred to its "substantiality." The belief in something being colloquially substantial is affirmed in idealism. Note the remarks of yours I addressed in bold. Corporeality, divisibility, extension, solidity, density, etc., are all sensible and therefore in the mind. They are ideal.

Calling a rose by any other name it remains what it is, but yet let us continue;

What idealism denies is that anything exists independent of ANY mind. Christianity is at odds with materialism, because materialism posits a mind-independent substance that is causally efficacious, philosophically fundamentally, properly basic, and even eternal. All of this is horseshit contrary to the Scriptures. Nothing exists outside of God's knowledge and express decree, NOTHING. this alone makes materialism impossible for nothing is causally efficacious outside of His will in a primary sense and nothing is independent of His mind.

What I am denying in calling myself a ''materialist'', is that anything created is, contra the scholastics, lacking in the aforementioned qualities of divisibility, extension, solidity, density, i.e., substantial form.

And sure, I guess that makes me a dualist of some sort if I apply Spirit only to God, without prejudice to His substantial and intimate Union with the God-Man Jesus Christ in the Incarnation, of course.

[starman2003]

Anarchists and capitalists are pretty strange bedfellows too, historically speaking.

But capitalists prefer minimal if any government regulation. Of course the State can be a great customer for their weapons etc.

[Potemkin]

But capitalists prefer minimal if any government regulation. Of course the State can be a great customer for their weapons etc.

But capitalists impose their own hierarchy, in the workplace. In fact, the workplace hierarchy is the one which most directly affects most working people, not the state (except in times of war). This is why almost all anarchists were anti-capitalist, until the right-wing chose to redefine 'anarchism' to mean free-market unregulated capitalism. The word 'libertarianism' has undergone a similar historical trajectory.

[annatar1914]

But capitalists impose their own hierarchy, in the workplace. In fact, the workplace hierarchy is the one which most directly affects most working people, not the state (except in times of war). This is why almost all anarchists were anti-capitalist, until the right-wing chose to redefine 'anarchism' to mean free-market unregulated capitalism. The word 'libertarianism' has undergone a similar historical trajectory.

Hello Potemkin my friend, glad that you make some contributions here, always concise and logical, I value it as I pilot my craft of intellect through the nether regions, the terrible bog, between the Scylla of a senseless ''traditionalism'' and the Charybdis of a heartless ''Communism''.

Seems to me that with Marx's dictum of ''From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'', that a Hierarchy is implied even with Communism/Socialism, something noted by the Marxist and British Scientist, J.B.S. Haldane as I recall.

Certainly, a more just and equitable society would try to contain the unjust exploitation of man by man and the unavoidable consequences of unequal gifts of talents and abilities given by life, while allowing for meritocratic rising up in a person's station in society. Justice, giving each one their due. But I cannot see the tension and yes, contradiction, ever going away among mankind this side of the end of the age and redemption of creation itself.

However, I agree that the principal source of what I consider the unjust inequality in life comes from the socio-economic system of Capitalism, and not the State, which I see as looking out almost solely for Capital's interests and maintaining the System at whatever human cost.

What you think of one of my primary ideas, Potemkin, that the final phase of Capitalism will be marked by the rise of Anarcho-Capitalism? And the other corollary to that being also that another titanic struggle will break out between the two ideological poles of Fascism/Anarcho-Capitalism and Communism/Socialism/Anarcho-Socialism?