Andrew Chrucky
G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, 3rd edition, 1998.
So, let me be up front. I believe — regardless of what others have written about this — that placing political power in the hands of one person (autocrat) is a bad idea. The only exception is that of past warfare, where quick reactions to quickly changing conditions in battles are required. And history of full of such military leaders.
But because a “leader” is needed in conducting battles, it does not follow that a leader is needed for “ruling” a country. As a point of illustration, Switzerland has a 7-member Federal Council, which is the executive office. And the history of Switzerland, by comparison with other nations, has been remarkably peaceful. [I found Gregory A. Fossedal, Direct Democracy in Switzerland (2002), very enlightening.]
My speech at the Haymarket Monument, May 1, 2019, recommending a Swiss style democracy.
Getting back to my main topic. Because of the many labels for one-person political rule, such as monarch, king, emperor, prince, dictator, tyrant, despot, president, chancellor, prime-minister; which carry different connotations and circumscriptions of power, I use the term “autocrat” as a generic term to include all such rulers.
Using “autocrat” as a genus, we can dichotomize the species into absolute and limited. Presidents, chancellors, and prime-ministers are forms of limited autocracy; though, as we know from case histories, that from these and even from councils or juntas, absolute autocrats arise.
Gore Vidal discerned such a transformation of the American office of a president to something approaching an absolute autocrat, by talking about an “imperial Presidency.” Below is an interview with Gore Vidal on Democracy Now in 2004. He talks — among other things — about President George W. Bush, and the US attack on Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).
My scholarship on autocrats is limited. But recently I came across “Juggernaut: The Path to Dictatorship” (1939) by Albert Carr, who studied 17 dictators. Here is his table of contents:
Part I: Dynasts
1. Richelieu: The Technique of Dictatorship
2. Louis XIV: The Perversion of Power
3. Frederick the Great: The Nation Militant
4. Bismarck: The Diplomacy of Empire
5. Primo de Rivera: The Forlorn Hope
6. Alexander, Metaxas, Carol: Ferment in Balkans
Part II: Revolutionaries
7. Cromwell: The Revolutionary Process
8. Robespierre: Terrorism and Conscience
9. Bolivar: Liberator into Dictator
10. Lenin: The Science of Revolution
11. Stalin: Toward a Classless Society?
Part III: Crisis-Men
12. Napoleon: The Empire of the Middle Class
13. Napoleon III: The “Idea”
14. Gomez: Crisis in Latin America
15. Mussolini: The “Idea” Up to Date
16. Ataturk, Salazar: Variations on a Theme
17. Hitler: Toward the Servile State?
Carr was interested in asking “why, how, and when does dictatorship come about?” That is a very interesting set of questions. But my question is of a different sort: Do we need autocrats at all?
A “right” is something that is granted by a government or by agreement within a social group (such agreements are implicit, as with customs or traditions, and explicit, as with promises and contracts).
Let me now say something about these desired “rights.”
1. It seems obvious to me that a human animal needs access to some territory in order to survive. This is true of hunter/gatherers (in past sociological works, the technical term for such people was “savages” (without derogatory connotations). It is also true of farmers and herders (again, called by past sociologists “barbarians” or “peasants”). Savages and barbarians were contrasted with city-dwellers or people living in a “civilization.”
As a result of conquests, people were either enslaved or enserfed. Both are forms of depriving people access to free subsistence land. Now people have been “proletarianized” i.e. deprived of access to free subsistence land, without being made either slaves or serfs.
As an example of how a savage or a barbarian can be made into a proletarian, the best example is of the British policy in Africa to impose a “hut tax.” This is equivalent to imposing a camping fee or a property tax. All such laws force people to enter the market economy either directly or indirectly. The system which creates proletarians is called Capitalism.
2. Closely connected with the deprivation to free subsistence land, is the rule which does not allow free camping. In Dade County, Florida (as well as in many other places), it is forbidden by law to camp in public places or to sleep in a parked vehicle, something I personally experienced. Such a law does not allow a homeless person even to sleep in a public space! By contrast to such laws, in the Scandinavian countries everyone is given the right to “roam,” meaning they have the right to travel and camp for free (with some restrictions, such as not to camp next to some home, not to leave behind trash, and only to camp for a limited time).
3. When Karl Popper talked about a “closed” society, he meant primarily a society which does not tolerate free speech. “Free speech” is really “critical speech.” I am under the impression that there is some kind of rule of etiquette not to talk about religion or politics. And it is precisely the criticism of religion and politics that has been censored, often with a death penalty. Consider all the people that have been killed for heresies in Christian countries, and the current Muslim Sharia law which calls for death to an apostate.
When I read about the lives of revolutionaries, what was striking is that they had to have secret societies, and had to smuggle forbidden literature, and when publishing a pamphlet, had to make sure not to catch the eye of some official censor.
4. Closely aligned with the right of free speech, is the right to assemble as in some protest, or to form a workers’ union for the purpose of a strike. Think of the Haymarket affair in Chicago (1886), Bloody Sunday in Russia (1905), Police Brutality during the Democratic Convention in Chicago (1968), , the Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine (2014), and countless others. The Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution in 1917, forbade the existence of any other Party; as did the Fascists and Nazis after gaining power.
Rick Steves’ The Story of Fascism
Since the words “fascism” and “fascist” are used in a vague manner as terms of abusive castigation, I will not try to define them; rather I will focus on the characteristics of so-called “fascism” which are feared and rejected.
Since all so-called “fascist” states have had a leader, who was a dictator, it is dictatorship which is not wanted. And dictatorship is not wanted because of what a dictator does. So, what do dictators do that is unwanted? They invariably try to secure their power, by eliminating opponents. They have their supporters — a party; and they forbid the existence of any other parties. Furthermore they forbid any protest to their rule: no protest of any sort is allowed, especially no worker protests. All speech critical of the leader or the government is forbidden. Propaganda is used to ensure conformity to the wishes of the dictator. And what is preached — because it unifies — is nationalism.
These features characterized the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Franco. By suppressing worker protests, these regimes were against socialism in the sense of worker-controlled enterprises. They were all in favor of capitalism; and in the Soviet Union, in favor of state-capitalism.
By the fact that these regimes embraced capitalism, there was a built-in pull towards imperialism. Consequently, fascism was characterized by militarism.
Since most of the countries in the world already have dictators or elected leaders, they have the potential to become fascist. If such a country with a single leader, also were to suppress criticism and protest, I would say it has become fascist. By this criterion, Russia, for example, is a fascist state.
As to the United States, it already has an ambitious irresponsible leader, and if it jails Julian Assange for his journalism, it will have moved closer towards fascism.
if p then q,
not q,
therefore, not p.
For example,
If this is wood, then it will float on water.
It does not float on water.
Therefore, this is not wood.
The peculiarity of the reductio argument is the nature of q. Q must be either a contradiction or plainly and certainly wrong.
How does this apply to Ukraine? Ukraine is a liberal democracy. A liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which thousands or millions elect an office holder. In a liberal democracy it is assumed that people are competent to elect their representatives.
This Sunday, April 21, 2019, Ukrainians will hold the run-off elections for its president. And by the estimate of the polls, Volodymyr Zelensky will be the overwhelming winner.
You say, so what? The fact of the matter is that he is winning on the basis that he is a well know television comedian, who for the last two years has starred in a television series “Servant of the People,” playing the role of a history teacher who by a quirk is elected the president of Ukraine. Otherwise, Zelensky has made no political pronouncements other than such generalities as wanting peace. It is solely on the basis of knowing a virtual, make-believe president, that the people will elect their next president. It is the ridiculous conflation of the actor Volodymyr Zelensky being identified with Vasyl Holoborodko (the virtual president).
This is a unique occurrence. It resembles the scenario in the British television series Dark Mirror, in which a cartoon bear, Waldo, runs as a candidate for political office, and gets a substantial vote. See below:
Here is the reductio ad absurdum:
If people are competent to elect a president, then the president chosen will be Holoborodko, who is believed to be Zelensky.
But Holoborodko is not Zelensky
Therefore, people are not competent to elect a president.
Daniel Dennett on Reductio ad Absurdum
If you elect X, you will suffer.
If you elect Y, you will suffer.
You have to elect X or Y.
Therefore, you will suffer.
This is a valid argument — the conclusion follows from the premises. But, is the argument sound? That requires that the premises be true.
The dilemma is the result of the Ukrainian constitution, which requires the office of a President. And right now there are two candidates scheduled for a run-off election on April 21, 2019. One is the incumbent oligarch President, Petro Poroshenko; the other, a celebrity comedian, who stars in the role of a Ukrainian President in the television series “Servant of the People.” His name is Volodymyr Zelensky. Both are unwanted for legitimate reasons.
The dilemma can be resolve by getting rid of the office of a President. So, the question is: Is the office of a President necessary or even desirable?
In countries which elect their leader by the people, he is called a President — as in the United States. In countries in which the parliament elects the leader, he is called Prime Minister — as in the United Kingdom.
And is some countries — as in Ukraine, there is both a President and a Prime Minister.
Countries which elect a President always face the task of selecting the lesser of two evils. Why? Because it takes money to run a national campaign, and the candidates with the most money tend to be the leading candidates. And once in office, they tend to work both for their own interest and the interest of their backers.
As evidence of this, just study the history of the US in both its domestic and foreign affairs.
Although the office of a Prime Minister is more responsible, it too has its dangers. Witness the phenomenon of Mussolini and Hitler — both were elected as Prime Ministers.
The lesson should be clear. There should be no leader. A leader is neither necessary not desirable.
What is the alternative? Switzerland!
Instead of a President or a Prime Minister, Switzerland has a seven-member Federal Council. These are nominated by their majoritarian political parties, and confirmed by their bi-cameral parliament.
Ukraine would do well to introduce an amendment to its constitution to nominate and confirm an n-member Federal Council — thus getting rid of its Presidential Dilemma.
“A state is a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain geographical territory.”
For my purposes, this definition will do. However, from my individual perspective, what is important to me and to everyone else, is the fact that we cannot occupy a piece of subsistence land for free, but must submit to the dictates of a centralized government.
How is the “State” different from a tribe, which also may prevent me from occupying a piece of land? Let us express the difference in the following way. If I am a member of a tribe, then I will be allowed to occupy a piece of land for free. But, if I am a member of a State, I will not be allowed to occupy a piece of land for free.
From this perspective, the question is: how is this transition from tribal free occupancy to a State non-free occupancy possible? This is the problem which has been labeled the problem of “primitive accumulation.”
One approach is to point out the difference in human natures. Some are gifted (i.e., intelligent, diligent, thrifty, etc.); others are not. OK, so the gifted will do better with their land holding than the less-gifted. Still, the less gifted will not work for the gifted unless their reward is equal or better than what they can accomplish on their own piece of land.
But the situation in a State is that many would be better off if they had access to free subsistence land; but they do not.
Despite the different theories of “State formation,”, only one is, for me, convincing. This is the conquest theory, which has been best formulated by Franz Oppenheimer in his book The State.
I urge the reader to read the book himself. The author is clear, brief, reasonable, and convincing. I will only focus on what to me is the convincing, deductive argument.
He starts with the following assumption:
“No one will work for another if he can do as well or better by living off subsistence land. All teachers of natural law, etc., have unanimously declared that the differentiation into income-receiving classes and propertyless classes can only take place when all fertile lands have been occupied. For so long as man has ample opportunity to take up unoccupied land, “no one,” says Turgot, “would think of entering the service of another”; we may add, “at least for wages, which are not apt to be higher than the earnings of an independent peasant working an unmortgaged and sufficiently large property”; while mortgaging is not possible as long as land is yet free for the working or taking, as free as air and water. Matter that is obtainable for the taking has no value that enables it to be pledged, since no one loans on things that can be had for nothing.”
Oppenheimer gives us the statistics for available land in Germany as well as in the world, at the time when he wrote (1914); concluding that there is ample land for everyone. But despite this, we are prevented from taking free occupancy by States.
The rest of the book is a narrative of conquests of one group of people by another. I need no further convincing, since the history of man is a history of war and conquest.
I want to conclude with the observation that since Oppenheimer wrote, we have a massive increase in populations and a decrease in available subsistence land. When Oppenheimer wrote, he gave 1.8 billion people in the world, and estimated 181 billion acres of available land, which would give each person roughly 100 acres. We have now 8 billion people, which, if that same amount of land were available, would give each person 22 acres, which is still sufficient for subsistence.
But this amount of land is not available. How much is available? Is there enough for subsistence for each person? If not, then this is my criterion for determining that we have an overpopulation problem. [That the problem can be solved by, let us say, vertical farming, is another matter.]
The powers of the Federal government are divided into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial; or, law-maker, policeman, and judge. And a similar division of powers exists on the State and Municipal levels.
Each branch is supposed to get the approval of the others to some degree, with rules for overriding. Congress passes laws, the President has the power of veto, but Congress has the power of overriding the veto. And the Supreme Court has the power to annul a law as unconstitutional (when tested).
As things stand, the President too has a law-making power in formulating a budget, issuing Presidential orders, having a private surveillance apparatus, and a private army, power of martial law, declaring a disaster area, power of federal pardon, and the command of the military; as well as all the legislative powers of the various cabinet posts. He nominates the cabinet posts; the Senate confers.
This is a great amount of power to give to one individual. And single individuals will want to play Napoleon in world chess — sacrificing pawns all over the place. Pawns are soldiers and civilians, which is to say — almost everyone.
This power is even greater in an “integral” country like Ukraine, which does not have a federated structure. In Ukraine, the president appoints all the governors; and the cabinet posts have national powers. Only on the municipal level is there a locally elected mayor and city-council, but the police and the judicial system are controlled by national cabinet posts.
Do I have to tell you what is wrong with giving power to a single individual on the national scale? The answer is. You get Stalin, Putin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and all the other crazies of history. You also court getting other types of lunatics into power — like Trump.
I propose that the power of the Executive should be divided between at least two individuals, as was done in ancient Sparta, with two kings; and ancient republican Rome, with two consuls.
The only significant current country to have done this is Switzerland. It has a seven-member Federal Council. It avoids the power of money and demagoguery in electing the executive by letting their four leading political parties nominate the candidates (as contrasted with self-nomination with the backing of money). The Swiss joint bicameral parliament confers the candidates. These seven are also the cabinet posts of Switzerland.
They meet in secret to deliberate and decide issues. And once a decision is made by majority vote, it is upheld by all of them. And unlike the voting of the Supreme Court in the United States, how each member of the Swiss Federal Council votes is not made public.
The only sane course for any country is to imitate Switzerland.
Why is this not done? Because it is to the advantage of those with money to have a President — in any and every country — who can be bribed and threatened.