{"id":1648,"date":"2019-04-23T00:53:51","date_gmt":"2019-04-23T00:53:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/?p=1648"},"modified":"2019-04-23T00:58:13","modified_gmt":"2019-04-23T00:58:13","slug":"timothy-snyders-red-herrings-in-the-road-to-unfreedom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/2019\/04\/23\/timothy-snyders-red-herrings-in-the-road-to-unfreedom\/","title":{"rendered":"Timothy Snyder&#8217;s Red Herrings in &#8220;The Road to Unfreedom&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<body bgcolor=\"#ffffff\" text=\"#000000\" link=\"#0000ff\" vlink=\"#800080\" alink=\"#ff0000\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/HVYct18uBnw\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<p>\nI have not read his book, &#8220;The Road to Unfreedom,&#8221; but I have watched a few of his lectures on this book.  I think I have picked up some of his \nleading ideas.  \n<p>\nMy overall judgement is that Timothy Snyder is involved in colossal Red Herrings. To call an argument a &#8220;red herring&#8221; is to say that it is \nfocused on the wrong thing relative to some problem. By this I mean that he is diverting our attention from where the more important \nproblems lie: it introduces peripheral, marginal matters. This is not to say that the diversion is wrong in  what it claims, it is rather to say that what it focuses on is irrelevant or relatively so.  \n<p>\nSince the title of his book is &#8220;The Road to Unfreedom,&#8221; it suggests, at least by associated titles, such works as Hayek&#8217;s &#8220;Road to Serfdom&#8221; and \nBertrand Russell&#8217;s &#8220;Proposed Roads to Freedom.&#8221; I mention these, but that is all.\n<p>\nSnyder begins with two implicit mythical views on the trajectories of history: an optimistic one, which he calls the &#8220;politics of inevitability,&#8221; and a pessimistic one, which he calls the &#8220;politics of eternity.&#8221; I don&#8217;t know why he chose these neologistic phrases, and I don&#8217;t know why the word &#8220;politics&#8221; is used. What these phrases describe is what Popper called &#8220;historicist&#8221; views &#8212;  attempts to discern (mythical) patterns in history.  And Snyder does recognize them as mythical.  \n<p>\nThe overtly optimistic one, which is akin to Fukuyama&#8217;s claim that we have reached the end of history, is the idea that capitalism and \nrepresentative democracy have now &#8212; so to say &#8212; conquered the world. We are now on a unalterable progressive path into the future.\n<p>\nThe pessimistic view is that we are &#8212; as always &#8212; surrounded by ever emergent enemies. History is a cyclical pattern of fighting with \nenemies. It is always &#8220;us&#8221; against &#8220;them.&#8221; It is a nationalistic view, and, according to Snyder, ultimately fascist.\n<p>\nSnyder, himself, views these two implicit beliefs as myths because, as he believes, the future is not determined and cannot be predicted, \nbut it can be shaped through effort. He calls this political effort, the &#8220;politics of responsibility.&#8221; What he means by this,  I think he expressed in his previous book &#8220;On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the 20th Century.&#8221; On the Bill Maher show, on which he appeared just after publishing his book, he was asked to name the top three lessons. Here is what he said. The first is: &#8220;Don&#8217;t obey in advance&#8221; by which he means figure it out for yourself &#8212; be critical. The second: &#8220;Defend institutions.&#8221; I think he meant something like &#8220;defend the US Constitution.&#8221;  The third: &#8220;Believe in truth.&#8221; I suppose this is a prescription against post-modernism. \n<p>\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/YOqVW4etYo0\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<p>\nFurthermore, he sees the &#8220;politics of inevitability&#8221; shaping the policies of the United States and Europe, and the &#8220;politics of eternity&#8221; shaping the policies of Russia.   \n<p>\nWhy are these Red Herrings?\n<p>\nLet me explain why all this is a red herring for me &#8212; a diversion.  We have one general political problem in the world: we are ruled by single \nindividuals. We used to have hereditary monarchies; now we have forced dictatorships or elected dictatorships with restricted powers.  \n<p>\nForced dictatorships, we understand; democratic dictatorships are the result of a widespread myths about inherent worth of both capitalism \nand democracy.\n<p>\nSnyder&#8217;s book is a red herring because it does not address the roots of our problems which is, from a Marxist perspective, capitalism, and \nfrom an anarchist perspective, &#8220;liberal&#8221; democracy. He bypasses these, that is why his discussion is for me a red herring.\n<p>\nI take it that an imperialistic country like the United States, with its &#8220;politics of inevitability,&#8221; fights its wars openly and aggressively. While Russia &#8212; a weaker power &#8212;  resorts to a new form of clandestine, hybrid warfare and propaganda. Hybrid warfare, on the one hand, was introduced by Russia in Crimea by sending in Russian soldiers in green uniforms bearing no insignias. And both Putin and these soldiers denied being Russian soldiers, with a general denial of any Russian involvement. Hybrid propaganda, on the other hand, is the injection into cyberspace of a spectrum of fake &#8220;facts&#8221; resulting in a public confusion and anxiety.  In this way, the enemy is defeated not from without, but from within.\n<p>\nAll this is true. But what does it have to do with the fact that we have capitalism, and &#8220;democratic&#8221; governments which support capitalism?\n<p>\nOn the Bill Maher show, Bill pointed out that President Donald Trump has done things which are reminiscent of such dictators as Hitler. This \nled to a reminder of two points.  The first one was stressed by Maher that Hitler was democratically elected. But, instead of focusing on what is the nature of democracy to allow someone like Hitler to emerge and take power, Snyder immediately went to point out that Hitler used the Reichstag fire to blame a set of enemies and curtailed rights of citizens. Snyder&#8217;s point was that  democracy can turn to dictatorship on the pretext of some national emergency. Yes, but under what kind of democracy is this possible? Is it possible, for example, under Swiss \ndemocracy? Again, instead of perhaps suggesting the need for a different type of democracy, Snyder, instead, advises us to mobilize and protest for our rights.\n<p>\nThe situation in the world is this.  Capitalism is almost completely  universal. And in almost every country there is a leader &#8212; either elected democratically or not. If elected, he is either a president or a prime minister (some have both). If he is not elected, he is either a monarch or a dictator.  And in every country there is a privileged class of government officials and oligarchs.  \n<p>\nSnyder does not define &#8220;fascism.&#8221; But I would call any country that (1) has a leader and (2) restricts freedom of speech &#8212; fascist  (though \nthe term applies historically only to Mussolini&#8217;s Italy). I suppose I would use the term &#8220;totalitarian&#8221; where there is suppression of the \nfreedom of speech (Popper&#8217;s &#8220;closed society&#8221;) regardless of the form of government.\n<p>\nSnyder disregards any criticism of the forms of government he is considering, which are all forms of one person rule.  And when talking \nabout democracy, he means &#8220;liberal democracy,&#8221; which is representative mass or macro democracy in which thousand and millions elect a \nleader. He does not consider other forms of democracy. Snyder ignores Switzerland which has a seven-member Federal Council, and he is oblivious to anarchism, which would be a bottom-up type of democratic government composed of nested councils.  I suppose he disregards these alternatives as apparently unrealistic &#8212; but they are possible alternatives, nonetheless. In other words, he is not interested in a criticism of either capitalism or democracy &#8212; save for recommending his &#8220;politics of responsibility.&#8221;\n<p>\nSnyder introduces more red herrings with the following. He says that the political problems for any regime are two-fold: the problem of succession and the problem of inequality. (Although inequality brings discontent, I would say that the real problem is poverty &#8212; not having enough for subsistence.) And the root cause of this is preventing people from having a free access to subsistence land (which happens to be the necessary condition for capitalism) &#8212; but Snyder is totally oblivious to this.\n<p>\nAs to political succession, the West deals with this problem  democratically, while Russia, under Putin, has become fascist &#8212; with no clear principle of succession.  On the other hand, the West deals with the problem of inequality by allowing a &#8220;theoretical&#8221; social mobility. While in Russia, there is the Platonic idea that justice requires knowing your place in society &#8212; hence, Snyder&#8217;s idea of &#8220;eternity&#8221; in contrast to mobility. \n<p>\nAs he pursues these red herrings, he claims that in order to understand Russia, we must understand Putin, and to understand Putin, we \nmust understand the philosophy of Ivan Ilyin. And from this perspective, Snyder views Ivan Ilyin as the most important (i.e., influential) philosopher of out time. Ilyin advocated a form of Christian fascism. His ideas: Democracy should be a ritual exercise (rigged). There should be no social advancement. Freedom is knowing what your place is. Factuality or truth does not matter if it serves a higher purpose. The end justifies the means. The world is defective; everyone lies. Nationalism is to prevail. \n<p>\nI am dubious about looking to sacred books to explain the deeds of dictators. I find it implausible to explain Stalin&#8217;s barbarity by way of Marx. As I find it implausible to explain Putin&#8217;s hybrid tactics by way of Ilyin.  The better way to explain Stalin, Hitler, Putin, or any leader, is better served by reading Machiavelli. There is, however, more reason in explaining theocratic practices such as the Inquisition by the Catholic Church&#8217;s interpretation of the Bible, and Sharia law by an appeal to the Koran.  But when it comes to secular individuals, they have their own reasons and their own interpretations.\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I have not read his book, &#8220;The Road to Unfreedom,&#8221; but I have watched a few of his lectures on this book. I think I have picked up some of his leading ideas. My overall judgement is that Timothy Snyder is involved in colossal Red Herrings. To call an argument a &#8220;red herring&#8221; is to &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/2019\/04\/23\/timothy-snyders-red-herrings-in-the-road-to-unfreedom\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Timothy Snyder&#8217;s Red Herrings in &#8220;The Road to Unfreedom&#8221;&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1648","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bullshit-arguments-fallacies"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1648","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1648"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1648\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1652,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1648\/revisions\/1652"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1648"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1648"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1648"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}