- 22 Nov 2017 05:16
#14864842
There is a difference between regulation, which is usually introduced by democratic governments to protect the public from imposture or fraud on the part of merchants or cartels (as Adam Smith pointed out, most associations of merchants have as their chief aim the defrauding of the public), and the interference of that state in its citizens' everyday lives which is characteristic of totalitarian populist states. Does a modern democratic (or semi-democratic) state intervene more actively in the everyday activity of society as a whole? Undoubtedly. But there are good reasons for this - the public must, after all, be protected from the depredations of the capitalists in order to avoid a social and political catastrophe, and the development of modern industrial-technological society requires a higher degree of micromanagement than a feudal social and economic system, which pretty much runs itself due to the devolved and localised nature of social and economic power in a feudal system. This is not the same thing as a 'totalitarian' system, though I suppose from the point of view of a feudalist almost everything that isn't feudalism looks totalitarian. Lol.
Hitler rose out of the experience of the First World War and of Germany's defeat in that industrial slaughterhouse; and he didn't rise 'out of' democracy, he hated and destroyed democracy, which he saw as a sign of degeneracy. He certainly used democratic institutions to gain power, but then so did the Bolsheviks from 1917-21, who didn't hesitate to use the Duma and the workers' soviets to gain political leverage in their bid for power. Does this mean that the Bolsheviks rose out of democracy in Russia?
This whole thing was brought up by a discussion of the thesis of Kuhnheldt-Leiden in his work "Liberty of Equality?" who argues that monarchies are self-interested authoritarian hierarchies that are not totalitarian either in the sense of mob-totalitarianism as in representative government, or as in individual totalitarianism as in the case of Hitler or a mao. Rather, he argues that the preservation of family rule in governance has typically required the monarch to avoid the intrusive behavior of regulation that is common in "democratic societies" today in order to prevent rebellion and overthrow.
There is a difference between regulation, which is usually introduced by democratic governments to protect the public from imposture or fraud on the part of merchants or cartels (as Adam Smith pointed out, most associations of merchants have as their chief aim the defrauding of the public), and the interference of that state in its citizens' everyday lives which is characteristic of totalitarian populist states. Does a modern democratic (or semi-democratic) state intervene more actively in the everyday activity of society as a whole? Undoubtedly. But there are good reasons for this - the public must, after all, be protected from the depredations of the capitalists in order to avoid a social and political catastrophe, and the development of modern industrial-technological society requires a higher degree of micromanagement than a feudal social and economic system, which pretty much runs itself due to the devolved and localised nature of social and economic power in a feudal system. This is not the same thing as a 'totalitarian' system, though I suppose from the point of view of a feudalist almost everything that isn't feudalism looks totalitarian. Lol.
He makes some compelling points, and he sees a direct connection between democratic and totalitarian institutions (much based on his experience as an Austrian who witnessed the rise of Hitler out of democratic institutions).
Hitler rose out of the experience of the First World War and of Germany's defeat in that industrial slaughterhouse; and he didn't rise 'out of' democracy, he hated and destroyed democracy, which he saw as a sign of degeneracy. He certainly used democratic institutions to gain power, but then so did the Bolsheviks from 1917-21, who didn't hesitate to use the Duma and the workers' soviets to gain political leverage in their bid for power. Does this mean that the Bolsheviks rose out of democracy in Russia?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)