Teddy Roosevelt: The Constitution does not give Right of Suffrage to any Corporation

" I stand for the square deal. But when I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service... When I say I want a square deal for the poor man, I do not mean that I want a square deal for the man who remains poor because he has not got the energy to work for himself. If a man who has had a chance will not make good, then he has got to quit... Now, this means that our government, National and State, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics... For every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation. The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man's making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being."    --Theodore Roosevelt

The Limits of Nationalism

Nationalism is merely a blind creed, like any other, and worship of the nation-state is a degrading form of idolatry like any other.  All value comes from above.  Our first political principle must be patriotism, but we must acknowledge the claim of something higher, even if it can never be ultimately embodied by our own collective efforts.  Patriotism, yes, but chauvinism, no.  A nation worthy of respect must always be under something greater than itself.

Scientific Progress and Rationality

Given the tragic and structural nature of the nation-state, it is clear what the ultimate purpose of science and technology and modern forms of bureaucratic rationality consists in:  a means of mass producing increasing numbers of weapons of mass destruction.  It is clear that our scientific age will not likely end until there is a large-scale nuclear exchange destroying the infrastructure of modern science, engineering, and economy.

Once humanity figured out that the scientific method could be harnessed for the production of better weaponry, which would give one nation a military advantage over another, the age of science dawned on the world.  Likewise, once human beings figured out techniques of mass production, by reducing workers from craftsmen and designers to widgets on an assembly line, without freedom or creativity, human beings became enslaved in a dehumanizing system of production.  These revolutions cannot be undone, because science and bureaucracy are the root causes of the modern arms race, and the modern economy is necessary to support the arms race, and no nation can defect without jeopardizing its sovereign power.  Obviously, the long-term ecological consequences of the environmental degradations of modern economy fueled by STEM research will not be addressed, because no nation will defect and endanger its national security.

We have built an iron cage, and we have locked ourselves within it, and there we shall remain until we succeed at destroying ourselves.  Secular rationalists, look to the morning star and give thanks for our enlightened progress over the forms of the past. Speak with contempt for those sustainable, pre-modern forms of life that were rooted in communities devoted to a real ethical ideal and grounded on a real spiritual principle. 

As Wittgenstein noted:

The hysterical fear over the atom bomb now being experienced, or at any rate expressed, by the public almost suggests that at last something really salutary has been invented.  The fright at least gives the impression of a really effective bitter medicine.  I can't help thinking:  if this didn't have something good about it the philistines wouldn't be making an outcry.  But perhaps this too is a childish idea.  Because really all I can mean is that the bomb offers a prospect of the end, the destruction, of an evil,--our disgusting soapy water science.  And certainly that's not an unpleasant thought; but who can say what would come after this destruction?  The people now making speeches against producing the bomb are undoubtedly the scum of intellectuals, but even that does not prove beyond question that what they abominate is to be welcomed. 

The Transnational Order

The root cause of national politics is structural, and the end result of politics is war and murder.  But at the same time, there is a possible way above politics.  The fundamental structural problems that give rise to sovereignty are doubt, and the desire to protect a way of life, and to expand a way of life through control of territory.

We can imagine a form of life that is in its essence anti-political, anti-national, and anti-war, as follows:

1.)  A voluntary community predicated on absolute obedience, where there is no individual doubt, and no self-will, and in which members focused their collective efforts on rooting out the causes of individual disobedience: the confession of sin, penance and mortification.

2.)  A voluntary community predicated on the renunciation of property and territory, where there is no ownership, and all live in poverty.

3.)  A voluntary community which avoids the partiality of family, where there are no children, no families, only a collective life based on a love of all.

4.)  A voluntary community based on collective slavery, where members voluntarily sacrifice their own sovereignty, and are prepared to die rather than use force. 

In such a community, to the extent that it embodies its ideals, there is nothing to protect and nothing to fear provided all members uphold vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.  However, any community which rejects these restrictions binds itself to the order of recurrent human sacrifice demanded by history and the law itself.  Further, any community that rejected renunciation but upheld a set of "international and humanitarian" ideals would find itself an ugly admixture of superficiality, greed, hypocrisy and brutality.

To quote Wittgenstein:

In former times people went into monasteries.  Were they stupid or insensitive people?--Well if people like that found that they needed to take such measures in order to be able to go on living, the problem cannot be an easy one!

The Rise of Totalitarian States in Europe in the Early Twentieth Century

As I have discussed previously, the First World War was predicated on the rise of German power, both in terms of industrial capacity and wealth (constituting 40% of Europe as a whole in 1913) as well as population.  Germany, due to its strategic position of strength, made a bid for regional hegemony in Europe, culminating in the First World War.  I believe the strategic threat posed by Germany was critical to the Fall of the Tzar and the rise of Communism in Russia.

Industrially, Tzarist Russia was economically backward relative to its European rivals.  It could not project force in sufficient numbers to defeat Germany, and made strategic mistakes in pursuing its offensive strategy.  Despite the fact that two-thirds of the German Army was concentrated on the Western Front, Tzarist Russia was not able to field a sufficient army to defeat the Germans, and this likely lead to the collapse in support for the Russian Government in the Army and in the masses. 

There is a standard American explanation of the rise of Communism in Russia, and the subsequent rise of National Socialism, which is the psychological seduction theory.  Specifically, Communist ideology and Nazi ideology beguiled the general populace with the false promise of totalitarianism, and people irrationally gave into small-minded hatred and intolerance.

I would like to suggest an alternative viewpoint, starting specifically with why Communism found favor with the Russian Army and the Russian people.  The Russians understood that Russia was economically backwards, and the traditional system, involving the Tzar and the nobility, was incapable of reforming itself and incapable of projecting a modern army capable of protecting Russia from the threat of Germany.

Although Germany lost the First World War, it probably only lost it because of the late entry of America (preventing German hegemony in Europe).  The Treaty of Versailles, perhaps correctly, undermined the German economy and restricted the German capacity to rearm itself, but it is clear that the Russian people sensed the existential threat posed by Germany, and the elite undoubtedly understood that Germany would be back.

Although the Communists faced civil war, and spent enormous time and energy in unifying Russia, once Communist control was consolidated, Stalin began a ruthless campaign of industrialization and militarization.  Starting from Russia possessing 11% of European GNP in 1913, the Russian economy under Communist leadership grew to 28% of European GNP by 1940.  Between 1933 to 1938, the size of the Red Army tripled.  The following table, based on Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics illustrates the massive increase in military capacity under Stalin:

Date            Artillery       Tanks          Men** % of European GNP   (vs. Germany)

1930                952             170          .535             14%                      33%

1933             4,368          3,509         

1936             4,324          4,800          1.30

1940           15,300         2,794*         3.60             28%                      36%

*Soviet conversion to Heavy Tanks

** Millions  (by 1941, Soviets had 5.0 million in Army with 2.9 million fighting)

What Communism offered Russia, which neither liberal democracy nor traditional monarchy could offer, was a system of centralized, consolidated power which allowed for the rapid creation of a massive war machine.  Unlike France and the Western front, which collapsed in a matter of months under the Blitzkrieg, Russia proved itself capable of holding its ground alone against the massive onslaught of the entire German Army at the peak of Nazi power.  If Russia had not adopted Communism, it is unlikely that under a rival system it would have been capable of industrializing and militarizing in the short space of time it had, and it is entirely possible that Nazi Germany would have won its goal of European hegemony.  The same cannot be said for the French Third Republic.

We can also understand the sentiments of the post-WWI German elite, who knew in their hearts of hearts that the goal of European hegemony has slipped through their fingers at the last moment due to the intervention of America.  The Treaty of Versailles represented a speed bump on the road to hegemony, and it was inevitable, given Germany’s population and level of relative industrialization, that it would make a second attempt.  The main rift in the Weimer Republic, between the Nazi’s and the German Socialist Worker’s Party, was really a question of whether to embrace the model being set by the Soviet Union, or to pursue a more limited model of state control, corporatism.   However, in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, socialism/state capitalism was linked to the creation of a war machine capable of achieving, or resisting, German hegemony. 

Although I am not attempting to suggest that totalitarianism is the answer to contemporary American problems, I am suggesting that in times of war, or in a country facing probable total war, the need for centralizing state decision-making into a unitary executive officer is necessary for national survival.  In addition, I am suggesting that state control and state management of private industry is fruitful for the rapid industrialization (and militarization) of an economy.  These methods of state ownership were not necessary in England and America during the Second World War, precisely because both England and America were heavily industrialized at the time of the conflict, and therefore, the transition to a modern war economy required less relative effort.   

Rather than viewing the adoption of Communism by Russia, or National Socialism by Germany as “irrational”, these ideologies served as the intellectual templates for “getting the job done.”  It is noteworthy that high ranking German military officials such as Colonel von Tresckow began plotting assassination attempts against Hitler in 1942, when it was clear that Stalin had held off the Germans, that the Americans were joining the war, and that the bid for German hegemony had failed.     

I have discussed the existential threat posed to Russia by Germany, and perhaps, one can understand why a perfectly rational Russian officer might throw in their lot with Lenin, despite deep reservations, in an effort to preserve the national sovereignty of Russia, but one might ask, why did the German elite desire to stage a repeat of World War I?  (Ignoring the fact that they would have likely won the war without the last minute entry of America.) 

To answer this, we have to understand the ambivalence of all acts of aggression:  an act undertaken as a defensive move is always interpreted as an offensive move by one’s enemy.  Germany, defeated and humiliated, had its economy destroyed by its foreign enemies, and its hands tied behind its back while it watched Stalin transform the Soviet Union into the hegemonic war machine it became--in  the post-war era--controlling the entire Eastern Block, and checked only by American boots on the ground and an American nuclear arsenal.  If Germany had waited, or pursued a less effective means of mobilization, then Germany would have been forced to defend against a Soviet bid for hegemony. 

God's Justice

God's punishment is collective, God's mercy is individual.

Humanity's punishment is individual, Humanity's mercy is collective.

God destroys the entire city, but he spares Lot and his family.  Humanity must punish sin in individuals, before it can metastasize into collective corruption and weakness.

The purest manifestation of God's judgment is in war, where God vanquishes the wicked, and delivers them to their enemies.  If we take E.O. Wilson's comments seriously, then we can see that God brings salvation to an altruistic people, but tears down the selfish nation. 

Love

It is clear (at least to me) that ethnie emerged specifically as a means to solve the fundamental human problem of trust, without which politics is impossible.  From an individualistic perspective, politics is fundamentally irrational, because it is fundamentally irrational to trust another person.  It is also fundamentally irrational from an individualistic perspective to sacrifice your welfare or your life for someone else, especially if they are not directly related to you.  Politics is fundamentally about love and loyalty to persons, groups and places, and a willingness to sacrifice yourself for what you love.  Conversely, politics is fundamentally about hate, especially modern politics, where the concrete and the particular have been hollowed out leaving only abstract ideology.  Am I the only person who has been almost run off the road by someone with a "Coexist" bumper sticker?  

E.O. Wilson on the Driving Force of Human Evolution

"Very simply, within groups selfish individuals in the process of natural selection win over others.  Between groups, the group of altruists beats the selfish individuals.  I'm afraid what made us human is the group selection that engendered social intelligence based upon selection between groups competing in an agreed cooperation, innovation, and intelligence of their members and, above all, the ability of the individuals to cooperate and to create a social environment conducive to efficient action even at the cost of individual genetic selection."  -- E.O. Wilson

Ethnie

In the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun (b. 1332 - d. 1406) notes:

The power of one individual human being cannot withstand the power of any one dumb beast, especially the power of predatory animals.  Man is generally unable to defend himself against them by himself.  Nor is his unaided power sufficient to make use of the existing instruments of defense, because there are so many of them and they require so many crafts and things.  It is absolutely necessary for man to have the co-operation of his fellow men.  As long as there is no such co-operation, he cannot obtain any food or nourishment, and life cannot materialize for him, because God fashioned him so that he must have food if he is to live.  Nor lacking weapons, can he defend himself.  Thus, he falls prey to animals and dies much before his time.  Under such circumstances, the human species would vanish.  When, however, mutual co-operation exists, man obtains food for his nourishment and weapons for his defense.  God's wise plan that mankind should subsist and the human species be preserved will be fulfilled.

Consequently, social organization is necessary to the human species.  Without it, the existence of human beings would be incomplete.  God's desire to settle the world with human beings and to leave them His representatives on earth would not materialize.  This is the meaning of civilization, the object of science under discussion.

Rather than espousing a neo-Darwinist view which presupposes the survival of the human species relates to the transmission of genetic material, Ibn Khaldun argues that human beings are only capable of surviving in difficult environments through collective co-operation.  Hypothetically, an individual might be able to survive alone, just as an individual might be born sterile.[1]  Human co-operation depends upon the capacity of human communication, through both language and gesture. 

Francisco Gil-White of the University of Pennsylvania defines the concept of ethnie as having three basic features:

1.)    A belief in membership by descent.

2.)    The perception of a unique and homogenous culture (often associated with a territory).

3.)    Category-based normative endogamy (restrictions on marriage outside of the group).

If we combine Ibn Khaldun’s observation that the survival of the human species depends upon collective co-operation, and we note that the most ancient form of  human societies, hunter gatherer tribes, we can see that these tribes typically met the definition of ethnie.  Members of the tribe believed in their descent from a common ancestor.  Members of the tribe shared a language, a set of stories (relating to their origin and development), a set of customs and rituals, a territory, and restrictions on marriage outside of the group.  Further, if we seek to affirm an evolutionary view of human history, the implication of Ibn Khaldun’s view is that the unit of natural selection is ethnie and not the individual or the gene. 

Ibn Khaldun goes on to describe the Beduin tribes of the desert:

The restraining influences among the Beduin tribes comes from their shaykhs and leaders.  It results from the great respect and veneration they generally enjoy among the people.  The hamlets of the Beduins are defended against outside enemies by a tribal militia composed of noble youths of the tribe who are known for their courage.  Their defense and protection are successful only if they are a closely knit group of common descent.  This strengthens their stamina and makes them feared, since everyone's affection for his family and his group is more important (than anything else).  Compassion and affection for one's blood relations and relatives exist in human nature as something God put into the hearts of men.  It makes for mutual support and aid, and increases the fear felt by the enemy.

Those who have no one of their own lineage (to care for) rarely feel affection for their fellows.  If danger is in the air on the day of battle, such a man slinks away and seeks to save himself, because he is afraid of being left without support.  Such people, therefore, cannot live in the desert, because they would fall prey to any nation that might want to swallow them up.

        

The Beduin are organized in a natural hierarchy.  In the group, certain figures occupy leadership roles, and their authority is rightly acknowledged by all.  The Beduin do not sit down and derive their principles of social order through rational deliberation, the nomos of the Beduin emerges spontaneously.  Further, in this context, any spoken or written constitution would operate as a description rather than a norm or rule for decision-making.  What creates the order is not an assent to certain discursive propositions which are “self-evident” or true a priori, the order is completely arbitrary.   What holds the order together is mutual assent and mutual purpose and need.   The order is revealed, not abstracted.

Although the order is arbitrary and based on agreement, the order is not completely unbounded.  Presumably it reflects the differences within the various personalities composing the whole.  In addition, an ethnie, in so much as it is successful, develops culturally in adaptive response to environmental conditions.  Because ethnie is principally about maintaining shared conventions of language and customs, and perceptions of inter-group belonging, it is fundamentally a function of geography, not hereditary.  It is possible for an ethnie to adopt a child into the group from other genetic stock, and it is possible for genetic mixing due to warfare or inter-marriage.  What preserves the ethnie is principally cultural transmission of language and customs, not a common gene pool. 

There is a developing body of literature looking at cultural differences on the basis of geography and modes of food production, for example, wheat farming versus rice farming.  There are studies on the cultural differences between cultures descending from herders versus farmers.  This understanding accords with Ibn Khaldun and the ancient Greek understanding that cultural differences between peoples are a reflection of geographical differences, not genetic inheritance. 

---

[1] It is interesting to note the frequency with which feral children are found living in packs of social animals.