![Communism [Modern Library Chronicles]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/31eeTPckVLL.jpg)
“In the present more secular age, the divine right of the State has been supplemented by the invocation of a new god, Science. State rule is now proclaimed as being ultrascientific, as constituting planning by experts.’’
Rothbard writing in 1974. He just . . . nailed it!
“ But while “reason” is invoked more than in previous centuries, this is not the true reason of the individual and his exercise of free will; it is still collectivist and determinist, still implying holistic aggregates and coercive manipulation of passive subjects by their rulers.’’
I find this insightful. The use of ‘reason’ has changed into ‘trust us’.
“The increasing use of scientific jargon has permitted the State’s intellectuals to weave obscurantist apologia for State rule that would have only met with derision by the populace of a simpler age. A robber who justified his theft by saying that he really helped his victims, by his spending giving a boost to retail trade, would find few converts; but when this theory is clothed in Keynesian equations and impressive references to the “multiplier effect,” it unfortunately carries more conviction. And so the assault on common sense proceeds, each age performing the task in its own ways.’’
Rothbard is just so much fun!
I’m reminded of the story in book of Acts . . .
“On a set day, Herod clothed himself with royal raiment and sat down on the judgment seat and began giving them a public address. Then the people who were assembled began shouting: “A god’s voice, and not a man’s!” Instantly the angel of Jehovah struck him, because he did not give the glory to God, and he was eaten up with worms and died.’’
Now, this only occasion where angel acts against ruler directly. Maybe, at this beginning of Christianity, the lesson that political rulers are not gods, not to be worshipped, prepared Christians for the conflict with the Roman Empire.
Rothbard explains something I’ve wondered . . .
“The majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives. Promoting this ideology among the people is the vital social task of the “intellectuals.” For the masses of men do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body of intellectuals. The intellectuals are, therefore, the “opinion-molders” in society. And since it is precisely a molding of opinion that the State most desperately needs, the basis for age-old alliance between the State and the intellectuals becomes clear.’’
This alliance of intellectuals and politics makes sense for this reason. Obvious. Now.
However . . .
“It is evident that the State needs the intellectuals; it is not so evident why intellectuals need the State.’’
Right.
“Put simply, we may state that the intellectual’s livelihood in the free market is never too secure; for the intellectual must depend on the values and choices of the masses of his fellow men, and it is precisely characteristic of the masses that they are generally uninterested in intellectual matters.’’
More and more this happening. Well . . .
“The State, on the other hand, is willing to offer the intellectuals a secure and permanent berth in the State apparatus; and thus a secure income and the panoply of prestige. For the intellectuals will be handsomely rewarded for the important function they perform for the State rulers, of which group they now become a part.’’
Intellectuals become rulers!
He provides famous historical example . . .
“The alliance between the State and the intellectuals was symbolized in the eager desire of professors at the University of Berlin in the nineteenth century to form the ‘intellectual bodyguard of the House of Hohenzollern.’”
Worth remembering how this ‘alliance’ resulted in the German disasters of the twentieth century.
Contents
What the State Is Not
What the State Is
How the State Preserves Itself
How the State Transcends Its Limits
What the State Fears
How States Relate to One Another
History as a Race Between State Power and Social Power
On dissent . . .
“The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism; there is no better way to stifle that criticism than to attack any isolated voice, any raiser of new doubts, as a profane violator of the wisdom of his ancestors. Another potent ideological force is to deprecate the individual and exalt the collectivity of society. For since any given rule implies majority acceptance, any ideological danger to that rule can only start from one or a few independently-thinking individuals.’’
Think of the Christian persecution by the Romans.
“The new idea, much less the new critical idea, must needs begin as a small minority opinion; therefore, the State must nip the view in the bud by ridiculing any view that defies the opinions of the mass. “Listen only to your brothers” or “adjust to society” thus become ideological weapons for crushing individual dissent. By such measures, the masses will never learn of the nonexistence of their Emperor’s clothes.It is also important for the State to make its rule seem inevitable.’’
These slices provide example of Rothbard’s style. Clear, trenchant, incisive and persuasive.
For some. Others . . .
This short work of 54 pages explains much.
Undoubtedly can produce various reactions - joy/anger, relief/frustration, insight/rejection.
Forty-four notes (linked)
Excellent references!
Index (not linked)
Your audiobook is waiting!
