Comments by rothbard WTF???

Reply

Redmond Posted: Wed, Sep 8 2010 8:37 PM

rated by 0 users

Empirically, the MOST warlike, MOST interventionist, MOST imperial government throughout the twentieth century has been the United States" (Pg. 287, emphasis Rothbard's).

 

And in addition to saying that the United States has been more "interventionist" and "warlike" than Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cambodia, Cuba, and Red China (et al), he tells us elsewhere that he cannot prove his own personal view that individual rights are correct over, for example, communist-collectivist views,

and furthermore, in his own words:

"So devoted was Stalin to peace that he failed to make adequate provision against the Nazi attack.... Not only was there no Russian expansion whatever apart from the exigencies of defeating Germany, but the Soviet Union time and again leaned over backward to avoid any cold or hot war with the west" (Pg. 294). 

 

Reply

Conza88 replied on Wed, Sep 8 2010 9:15 PM

rated by 0 users

"Was chatting with a friend of mine about Rothbard, and he mentioned that Murray was a Ethical Relativist"

He's wrong. 

But a link to the primary source so I can read the content in context would be helpful. I'm going to go ahead and say right now, quote 2 is complete bs... primairly because it's not a quote at all, it's a baseless assertion.

Your friend has also altered quotes, they are not direct ones at all. He has also lied, emphasis was not Rothbard's.

Reply

Caley McKibbin replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 1:54 AM

rated by 0 users

These quotes are from what book?

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 3:40 AM

rated by 0 users

Seph:

If those quotes are 100% accurate, (which I doubt) then it was likely that Rothbard was specifically referring to Stalin's relatively peaceful foreign policies, as opposed to his tyrannical and oppressive domestic ones. If this is the case, then Rothbard would be absolutely correct, as the Soviet Union was absolutely less imperialistic and warlike in its foreign policy than the US; with its deadly combination of democratically elected demagogues and a relatively free, unimpeded tax base, with which to draw upon for foreign conquest. 

It doesn't really make sense from a libertarian perspective to distinguish between 'foreign' and 'non-foreign'; the government is always an external coercive institution. 

Secondly; even if you accept this dichotomy, it stll wouldn't follow. Stalin basically took over half of Europe and kept those satellite state-governments in place. It's not hard to call something your own country, if you basically took it over. 

Reply

Seph replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 8:08 AM

rated by 0 users

AdrianHealey:

It doesn't really make sense from a libertarian perspective to distinguish between 'foreign' and 'non-foreign'; the government is always an external coercive institution.

It helps destroy the myth of limited government. When a free market is successful in enriching a democratic, limited state, the rulers have much more potential money (taxes) to spend. This vast wealth sets them at a comparative advantage to those nations who have adopted more socialist (unproductive) means of organization. There is a huge incentive for the leaders of the more capitalist countries, to wage war, because they know they can win. Of course, the forces of warfare and expanding empire lead to borrowing/printing money and spiraling debt, which in turn, leads to socialist policies.  

AdrianHealey:

Secondly; even if you accept this dichotomy, it stll wouldn't follow. Stalin basically took over half of Europe and kept those satellite state-governments in place. It's not hard to call something your own country, if you basically took it over.

America has basically had constant warfare of one form or another overseas, for the last 70 years. The US also has over 700 military bases in over 130 countries.

The USSR would never have been able to maintain either such extended warfare, nor such an empire, because their economy and citizens were in such an uproductive state. Can you imagine a modern day Cuba or North Korea waging an Iraq-like war? We should hope they do, as it would cause their nations to crumble in about a week.  Anyways, Hoppe has discussed this historical phenomenon in a lecture ( cant remember which one of the top of my head)

Reply

Marko replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 10:40 AM

rated by 0 users

These quotes are from what book?

For a New Liberty.

Reply

Jonathan M. F. Catalán replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 11:41 AM

rated by 0 users

Well, for the record, it is false that Stalin was looking to avoid war with Germany.  The case may be true for 1941, but only because the Red Army was going through a severe re-organization which was bound to be completed by 1942.  The Red Army of the 1930s was in large part created by Mikhail Tukhachevsky in early and mid-1930s (Tukhachevsky is oftentimes cited as the true father of modern mechanized warfare), and centered around large, bulky, awkward mechanized corps.  Tukhachevsky, of course, was killed during Stalin's purges, in 1937.  In 1940, aware of the brilliant German campaign in France, the Red Army began a two-year reorganization, eliminating these bulky mechanized corps and aiming to create far more flexible mechanized units of a smaller size.

The Wehrmacht caught the Red Army in the middle of that re-organization period (of course, to a large degree, the German success in 1941 was also due to an inexperienced officer corps), leading to the destruction of the Red Army in the fall of 1941.

That Stalin was uninterested in war in 1941 should be obvious, but that he was persistently interested in peace with the Germans is false.  That he was interested in creating a boundary between the Soviet Union and Germany was obvious since his occupation of parts of eastern Finland, as well as the occupation of the Baltic countries and of eastern Poland.

However, my point is a bit pedantic and shouldn't subtract from Rothbard's overall argument (that the United States has been highly imperialistic, and oftentimes more so than communist countries such as the Soviet Union and China).  On the other hand, Rothbard's history has been known to be a bit sketchy.  For example, there were some good comments on Rothbard's history of economic thought posted on this forum, somewhere.

Reply

Marko replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 11:47 AM

rated by 0 users

Well, for the record, it is false that Stalin was looking to avoid war with Germany.

What evidence do you offer for this other than that Stalin "was interested in creating a boundary between the Soviet Union and Germany"?

Reply

Redmond replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 12:04 PM

rated by 0 users

Here is the full quotation - page 338 of the 2006 Von Mises edition

But there are still other reasons for libertarians here to
focus upon the invasions and foreign interventions of the
United States. For empirically, taking the twentieth century as
a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most
imperialist government has been the United States. Such a
statement is bound to shock Americans, subject as we have
been for decades to intense propaganda by the Establishment
on the invariable saintliness, peaceful intentions, and devotion
to justice of the American government in foreign affairs.
The expansionist impulse of the American State began to
take increasing hold in the late nineteenth century, leaping
boldly overseas with America’s war against Spain, dominating
Cuba, grabbing Puerto Rico and the Philippines, and brutally
suppressing a Filipino rebellion for independence. The
imperial expansion of the United States reached full flower in
World War I, when President Woodrow Wilson’s leap into the
fray prolonged the war and the mass slaughter, and unwittingly
bred the grisly devastation that led directly to the Bolshevik
triumph in Russia and the Nazi victory in Germany. It
was Wilson’s particular genius to supply a pietistic and
moralistic cloak for a new American policy of worldwide
For a New Liberty
338
intervention and domination, a policy of trying to mould
every country in the American image, suppressing radical or
Marxist regimes on the one hand and old-fashioned monarchist
governments on the other. It was Woodrow Wilson who
was to fix the broad features of American foreign policy for
the rest of this century. Almost every succeeding President has
considered himself a Wilsonian and followed his policies. It
was no accident that both Herbert Hoover and Franklin D.
Roosevelt—so long thought of as polar opposites—played
important roles in America’s first global crusade of World War
I, and that both men harked back to their experience in World
War I intervention and planning as the guideposts for their
future foreign and domestic policies. And it was one of
Richard Nixon’s first acts as President to place Woodrow Wilson’s
picture upon his desk.

In the name of “national self-determination” and “collective
security” against aggression, the American government
has consistently pursued a goal and a policy of world domination
and of the forcible suppression of any rebellion against
the status quo anywhere in the world. In the name of combatting
“aggression” everywhere—of being the world’s “policeman”—
it has itself become a great and continuing aggressor.

Reply

Redmond replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 12:11 PM

rated by 0 users

This is where the peaceful Stalin comes from - read from about page 365 on, in the 2006 edition.

Thus, fortuitously, from a mixture of theoretical and practical
grounds of their own, the Soviets arrived early at what
libertarians consider to be the only proper and principled foreign
policy. As time went on, furthermore, this policy was
reinforced by a “conservatism” that comes upon all movements
after they have acquired and retained power for any
length of time, in which the interests of keeping power over
one’s nation-state begins to take more and more precedence
over the initial ideal of world revolution. This increasing conservatism
under Stalin and his successors strengthened and
reinforced the nonaggressive, “peaceful coexistence” policy.

The Bolsheviks, indeed, began their success story by being
literally the only political party in Russia to clamor, from the
beginning of World War I, for an immediate Russian pullout
from the war. Indeed, they went further and courted enormous
unpopularity among the public by calling for the defeat
of “their own” government (“revolutionary defeatism”).
When Russia began to suffer enormous losses, accompanied
by massive military desertions from the front, and the war
became extremely unpopular, the Bolsheviks, guided by
Lenin, continued to be the only party to call for an immediate
end to the war—the other parties still vowing to fight the
Germans to the end. When the Bolsheviks took power, Lenin,
over the hysterical opposition of even the majority of the Bolshevik
central committee itself, insisted on concluding the
“appeasement” peace of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918. Here,
Lenin succeeded in taking Russia out of the war, even at the
price of granting to the victorious German army all the parts
of the Russian empire which it then occupied (including
White Russia and the Ukraine). Thus, Lenin and the Bolsheviks
began their reign by being not simply a peace party, but
virtually a “peace-at-any-price” party.

Reply

Jonathan M. F. Catalán replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 12:36 PM

rated by 0 users

What evidence do you offer for this other than that Stalin "was interested in creating a boundary between the Soviet Union and Germany"?

The occupation of the Baltic countries and of eastern Poland (and the non-aggression pact).  It's clear that there was a conflict of interest between the two countries in regards to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, even if neither of them expected a major war between them in 1939 or 1940.

Reply

Jonathan M. F. Catalán replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 12:39 PM

rated by 0 users

I don't know much about the Russian Civil War, apart from what I've read of A People's Tragedy, but how much of the Bolshevik peace with Germany had to do with ending the war so that Bolshevik forces could instead focus on consolidating power in Russia?  Had the Bolsheviks known they could have pushed the Germans out of Western Russia (White Russia), I'm not so sure they would have called for peace as early as they did.

Reply

Marko replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 4:38 PM

rated by 0 users

The occupation of the Baltic countries and of eastern Poland (and the non-aggression pact).

How does that prove Stalin was interested in a war with Germany?

It's clear that there was a conflict of interest between the two countries in regards to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, even if neither of them expected a major war between them in 1939 or 1940.

Clear from what?

Reply

Marko replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 4:59 PM

rated by 0 users

I don't know much about the Russian Civil War, apart from what I've read of A People's Tragedy, but how much of the Bolshevik peace with Germany had to do with ending the war so that Bolshevik forces could instead focus on consolidating power in Russia?  Had the Bolsheviks known they could have pushed the Germans out of Western Russia (White Russia), I'm not so sure they would have called for peace as early as they did.

The Bolsheviks called for peace at any price because they expected any peace settlement to be temporary and of a short duration. Regimes all over Europe would be swept away by a Communist revolution so it did not matter what they signed now. As long as it meant their western flank was momentarily secure they would be happy.

Even so once they got a truce they basically had all they had wanted already and so stalled endlessly, avoiding to sign a formal peace settlement with the Germans. Finally Ludendorff lost patience with them and issued them an ultimatum. Since the Russian soldiers had simply left the front and went home as soon as the truce was proclaimed and the German army stood on the front unopposed they had no choice but to accept. Even so the first time the vote was to decline the ultimatum, because the conditions were so unfavorable. But it was accepted in the second voting after Lenin had threatened to resign as the head of the party if the vote was not for the treaty.

Reply

Marko replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 5:41 PM

rated by 0 users

Rothbard's writting could sometimes be a little over the top. It is a point I raised a while ago on here in regard to a few of his articles from the Rothard-Rockwell Report but it was not well received.

It is clear that the second quote is not entirely correct. There was some Soviet expansion that did not come about as a consequence of driving back the Germans. Namely the acquisitions in 1940 and the acquisitions from Japan. But it is also clear that Rothbard does not write what he does out of ignorance or desire to deceive. Since he actually writes in the paragraph above that one about Soviet annexations of 1940. So all he is guilty of here is some not sufficiently careful enough writting.

I would not sign under Rothbard's exact words, but he is basically correct about Stalin. Stalin ruled the USSR from 1927 to 1953. An awful long time. How many wars did he launch in this time? He ruled over a decade without expanding his domain by an inch. Then in 1939 and 1940 enlarged the Soviet Union to include the Baltics, Bessarabia, West Belarus and Galicia only after they had been handed to him on a silver platter and doing so did not represent any amount of risk. (Also note none of them is a particularly juicy conquest.)

After the conclusion of the Second World War he stuck to the war time agreements even after they had been blatantly breached by the Anglo-Americans and offered only token aid to the Communists in the Korean War (contrast this with the conduct of the US). He kept Tito in line in regard to Trieste and his standoff with the Anglo-Americans there and refused to aid the Communists in the Greek Civil War (contrast this with the conduct of the US) in the slightest, since he had agreed with Churchill Greece would be outside the Soviet sphere.

There is nothing in his record to show him as an adventurist or a risk taker. On the contrary. This was a man who killed or imprisoned thousands upon thousands of his officers. He could not have believed that all of them were a threat to him. However he preffered to err on the safe side so to say, even if it meant crippling his military. Another nail in the coffin of the silly idea of Stalin as the conqueror enthusiast. Surely a ruler interested foremost in conquest would not be killing off his best officers? Actually the Red Army purge was still taking place in 1941 when the Germans invaded albeit at a reduced intensity.

A wannabe Alexander he was not.

Reply

Jonathan M. F. Catalán replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 6:54 PM

rated by 0 users

How does that prove Stalin was interested in a war with Germany?

"Conflict of interest" doesn't necessarily mean there has to be a war.  There may be conflict of interest between Canada and Spain over certain fishing zones off the coast of Nova Scotia, but it doesn't mean that the two are prepared to go to war over it.  In any case, like I said, I don't think either Hitler or Stalin expected to go to war even as late as early-1940 (well, it was probably in Hitler's mind for some time), and Stalin probably did not explicitely plan to go to war in the foreseeable future.  Nevertheless, tensions between the two countries were fairly tense, especially over the Balkans and over other Soviet territorial claims in Eastern Europe (for example, the Germans were not happy with the Soviet occupation of the Baltic countries).

I think that even had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union in mid-1941, war would have still erupted between the two sooner or later (assuming, of course, that war in the West did not evolve further than it already had).

Clear from what?

I've already provided examples twice.  The German invasion of the Soviet Union is another example.

Reply

Jonathan M. F. Catalán replied on Thu, Sep 9 2010 6:57 PM

rated by 0 users

Another nail in the coffin of the silly idea of Stalin as the conqueror enthusiast.

I wasn't challenging Rothbard's general view of Stalin, rather simply commenting on Stalin's intentions during the Second World War.

EDIT:  Also, relevant to that time period, let's not forget about Stalin's substantial aid to Republican Spain (although, for the most part meant to overtake the CNT as the primary political influence in the Popular Front).

Reply

Conza88 replied on Fri, Sep 10 2010 12:01 AM

rated by 0 users

Yes, so emphasis wasn't Rothbard's. Your friend lied, or was misinformed.

And where does Rothbard make a claim that comes anywhere near:

"he tells us elsewhere that he cannot prove his own personal view that individual rights are correct over, for example, communist-collectivist views"

Reply

Sukrit replied on Fri, Sep 10 2010 12:59 AM

rated by 0 users

The first quote by Rothbard is absolutely 100% correct. Nazi Germany and Red China etc. seem to the ignorant observer to be valid counter-examples, but in fact their destruction and interventionism was mostly inward-focused - mass murder within their borders.

If we take Rothbard to mean that the US has been the most aggressive nation, externally, then that is clearly true. Take the period from 1900-1973 (when For A New Liberty was published, I think) and even then you will find that the US was more warlike than any other nation - think about the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

In the year 2010, the statement is even more true than when Rothbard wrote as we can include the hundreds of thousands dead from Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, plus the global military presence of the American empire, which daily wreaks havoc on the countries it occupies.

Reply

assimilateur replied on Fri, Sep 10 2010 1:54 AM

rated by 0 users

So you're saying that the Holocaust never happened, or that you consider it inward-focused aggression because the Nazis invaded before any of that shit started?

I am going to go ahead and echo a previous poster's sentiment that we're dealing with a false dychotomy here. From a libertarian perspective, one can hardly make a distinction between war waged on a state's own citizens and war directed against foreigners. Murder and oppression shouldn't be judged based on who issued the victim's passport.

Reply

Caley McKibbin replied on Fri, Sep 10 2010 3:05 AM

rated by 0 users

Surely a ruler interested foremost in conquest would not be killing off his best officers?

You can't conquer anything when your regime has been overthrown by a coup.  He was a paranoid maniac that cared about nothing but his grip on control.  His plan was to build up his own army whilst the armies of Europe smashed each other and then invade the feeble remains.  Everything he did was calculated for maximum long term territorial gain at low risk, which often meant compromising temporarily.  Does that make him less of a conqueror?  The USSR ultimately succeeded in extensive worldwide subversion before its collapse.  They didn't need to use guns most of the time.

Reply

Redmond replied on Fri, Sep 10 2010 7:14 AM

rated by 0 users

Yes, so emphasis wasn't Rothbard's. Your friend lied, or was misinformed.

And where does Rothbard make a claim that comes anywhere near:

"he tells us elsewhere that he cannot prove his own personal view that individual rights are correct over, for example, communist-collectivist views"

 

Hey Conza88 - the Quote was from the 1973 edition and the emphasis was there.

Reply

Redmond replied on Fri, Sep 10 2010 7:19 AM

rated by 0 users

If we take Rothbard to mean that the US has been the most aggressive nation, externally, then that is clearly true. Take the period from 1900-1973 (when For A New Liberty was published, I think) and even then you will find that the US was more warlike than any other nation - think about the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

Far more people died in the battle of Okinawa - and far more people died in the fire bombing of Japanese cities than in those two big explosions.

They were just big.

And how about 6 000 000 exterminated by the Nazis?

We have no idea how expansionist the Communists might have been, had there not been a counter force pushing back on them.

Though I do believe the USA has taken a turn for the worse lately.

Reply

Redmond replied on Fri, Sep 10 2010 7:23 AM

rated by 0 users

More On Rothbards Relativism

I've read the other article and I know his famous quote -- "Philosophically, I believe that libertarianism — and the wider creed of sound individualism of which libertarianism is a part — must rest on absolutism and deny relativism" -- but I know also, from his own words, that he was an explicit admirer of Leninist-Stalinist Russia, and that he cheered publicly when communist North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. The quote I was referring to is from Modern Age, pg 355, in which he writes:

"As a political theory, Libertarianism is a coalition of adherents from all manner of philosophic (or nonphilosophic) positions, including emotionalism, hedonism, Kantian a priorism, and many others..."

He goes on to say that although he himself grounds his own view of Libertarianism in Aristotlean-Lockean realism and rights "this is an argument within the Libertarian camp about the proper basis and grounding of Libertarianism rather than about the doctrine itself."

So on the one hand, Libertarianism must be grounded on an Aristotelian premise, but, on the other, "all manner of philosophic (or nonphilosophic) positions, including emotionalism, hedonism, Kantian a priorism" are consistent with Libertarianism. That is relativism.

Reply

Seph replied on Fri, Sep 10 2010 7:28 AM

rated by 0 users

Redmond:

We have no idea how expansionist the Communists might have been, had there not been a counter force pushing back on them.

China? Cuba? North Korea? Vietnam? Cambodia? Indonesia?

Redmond:

Though I do believe the USA has taken a turn for the worse lately.

If by 'lately' you mean 'in the last 100 years'

Reply

Conza88 replied on Fri, Sep 10 2010 9:23 AM

rated by 0 users

"Hey Conza88 - the Quote was from the 1973 edition and the emphasis was there."

Oh that makes complete sense then! Your friend is still operating in 1973.

"but I know also, from his own words, that he was an explicit admirer of Leninist-Stalinist Russia, and that he cheered publicly when communist North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam."

Why is this guy trying to drag / 'salvage' Rothbard, to try depict him in some relativist light? It is most amusing, but beyond absurd.

Again, your friend is wrong.

How Murray Rothbard Single-Handedly Brought Down the Saigon Government with Malice Aforethought by Joseph R. Stromberg

A Hardy Weed

As the current US foreign policy adventure drags on, it seems as good a time as any to address a recurring charge brought against Murray Rothbard by sundry libertarians (sic), Randians, near-Neo-Conservatives, and other worthies. Strictly speaking, the complaint is not that Rothbard, alone and unaided, brought down the Saigon Government in 1975; even Rothbard’s enemies do not go quite that far. The complaint seems to be that Rothbard “cheered” when that government fell, proving that he was “pro-communist,” had a bad attitude about these things, was crazy and immoral, etc.  cont...

So this guy is the other side of the coin, same charge - but supports it... haha

The quote I was referring to is from Modern Age, pg 355, in which he writes:

"As a political theory, Libertarianism is a coalition of adherents from all manner of philosophic (or nonphilosophic) positions, including emotionalism, hedonism, Kantian a priorism, and many others..."

Modern Age? And why is it that all his quotes as 'proof' are always incomplete and completely out of context? So anyway to verify this quote.

This is something similar he has said here:

In "Big-Government Libertarians," MNR:

"Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be - and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular - and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn't work that way."

The point is that those things are outside the realm of political philosophy. He's not a relativist at all, he merely makes the distinction between personal morality & political ethics. In terms of personal morality, although he never essentially wrote about it (he had a political edifice to develop), besides being brought up here in 1973 (lol) edition of Libertarian Forum.

"How about Professor Block's second premise, that evil is only the initiation of violence? Here I think it is possible to partially reconcile the Block and Halliday positions. It is a question of what context we are dealing with. I would agree with Block that within the context of libertarian theory, evil must be confined to the initiation of violence. On the other hand, when we proceed from libertarianism to the question of wider social and personal ethics, then I would agree with Halliday that there are many other actions which should be considered as evil: lying, for example or deliberately failing to fulfill one's best potential. But these are not matters about which liberty - the problem of the proper scope of violence - has anything to say. In short, qua libertarian there is nothing wrong or evil about breaking dates, being gratuitously nasty to one's associates, or generally behaving like a cad: here not only do I join Professor Block, but I would expect Mr. Halliday and all other libertarians to do the same. On the other hand, qua general ethicist, I would join Mr. Halliday in denouncing such behavior, while Professor Block would not."

Recently; "Block: I'm shocked that I ever wrote it. I don't think I meant it. I agree, fully, with Murray."

If you want more stuff on relativism:

"The essential message of deconstructionism and hermeneutics can be variously summed up as nihilism, relativism, and solipsism. That is, either there is no objective truth or, if there is, we can never discover it. With each person being bound to his own subjective views, feelings, history, and so on, there is no method of discovering objective truth. In literature, the most elemental procedure of literary criticism (that is, trying to figure out what a given author meant to say) becomes impossible. Communication between writer and reader similarly becomes hopeless; furthermore, not only can no reader ever figure out what an author meant to say, but even the author does not know or understand what he himself meant to say, so fragmented, confused, and driven is each particular individual. So, since it is impossible to figure out what Shakespeare, Conrad, Plato, Aristotle, or Machiavelli meant, what becomes the point of either reading or writing literary or philosophical criticism?" - The Hermeneutical Invasion of Philosophy and Economics - MNR

Reply

Redmond replied on Fri, Sep 10 2010 9:56 AM

rated by 0 users

Oh that makes complete sense then! Your friend is still operating in 1973.

Sorry Conza - but it is important - in the first edition - the emphasis is there.

That was the intent of Rothbard.

They should have kept it in for the later Edition - Taking it out was a concious decision - I'll get back to your other points later.

Reply

Redmond replied on Fri, Sep 10 2010 12:47 PM

rated by 0 users

@Conza.

Thanks for the other stuff - I'll read up on it.

Reply

Conza88 replied on Fri, Sep 10 2010 6:36 PM

rated by 0 users

Sorry Conza - but it is important - in the first edition - the emphasis is there.

That was the intent of Rothbard.

I realise that. Part of my comment wasn't just about that, but also a side mention / jibe as to why your friend is a stalin-russian sympathizer. He must have missed the break up of the Soviet Union / it hasn't happened yet, since he's in 1973 and that takes place in 1991.

Who has access to the 73' version anyway? I guess he has the book?

Reply

Sukrit replied on Sat, Sep 11 2010 11:02 PM

rated by 0 users

We need to remember that the US has been continously in existence as a political entity for the entire 20th century. Other countries that have been aggressive externally have a lower death & destruction toll because they were different countries in the past. That's why their DD toll goes down compared to the US, because we can't say "X country was warlike" we have to say "the loose coalition of states was warlike" or the "country formerly known as X - with these borders - but now called Y - with a different set of borders- was warlike".

If you added up the sum total of death and destruction caused by the US (including indirectly, through the sponsoring of terrorist groups), it'd come out on top. The American military budget has, for a long time, been ridiculously high compared to other countries. Most of that spending is used for offensive purposes, rather than national defense, as Ron Paul keeps pointing out. In the 20th century, it started with Teddy Roosevelt and has been 'taking a turn for the worse' since then.

I haven't seen any evidence that Rothbard conducted careful empirical study before making that statement however. So it was careless on his part to make such a strong statement without substantiating it. Nevertheless, my feeling is that he's correct.

Reply

Marko replied on Sun, Sep 12 2010 8:03 AM

rated by 0 users

"Conflict of interest" doesn't necessarily mean there has to be a war.  There may be conflict of interest between Canada and Spain over certain fishing zones off the coast of Nova Scotia, but it doesn't mean that the two are prepared to go to war over it.  In any case, like I said, I don't think either Hitler or Stalin expected to go to war even as late as early-1940 (well, it was probably in Hitler's mind for some time), and Stalin probably did not explicitely plan to go to war in the foreseeable future.  Nevertheless, tensions between the two countries were fairly tense, especially over the Balkans and over other Soviet territorial claims in Eastern Europe (for example, the Germans were not happy with the Soviet occupation of the Baltic countries).

I think that even had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union in mid-1941, war would have still erupted between the two sooner or later (assuming, of course, that war in the West did not evolve further than it already had).

You have changed your argument but act as if you were stil defending the same argument.

You have stated "it is false that Stalin was looking to avoid war with Germany." Then you failed to provide meningful evidence to support the claim that Stalin was not looking to avoid war, but that he was interested in war. 

Now you have changed your argument into approximately: 'there were irreconciliable differences so there was always going to be a war'.

A conflict of interest is not evidence that Stalin was interested in starting a war with Germany. Examples of a conflict of interest are meaningless for your original point.

PS, USSR expanding into territories allocated to it by the Hitler-Stalin pact does not even prove a conflict of interest. If anything the pact proves that any conflict of interest may be overcome if idelogical motivations give way to pragmatism. Also I would like to hear about this "tension" in regard to the Balkans. I don't know that pre-WWII USSR had any meaningful interest in the Balkans. Nor was Hitler interested in it more than just from a defensive standpoint.

Reply

Marko replied on Sun, Sep 12 2010 8:18 AM

rated by 0 users

The German invasion of the Soviet Union is another example.

The fact that Germany invaded the Soviet Union does not prove there were territorial tensions between the two or a conflict of interests. Hitler invaded in order to bring Britain to the negotiating table and from idelogical considerations. Not from any sort of real clash of interest which had been resolved by the Hitler-Stalin pact's division of spheres of influence and expansion.

The invasion only came about  after Hitler achieving hegemony in Europe adopted an ideological foreign policy in the East whereas before he had practiced an extrodinarily pragmatic foreign policy. Stalin on the other hand never in his lifetime let ideology guide his foreign policy, but was always a pragmatic so even 'ideological tension' could only ever be one sided.

Reply

Marko replied on Sun, Sep 12 2010 8:27 AM

rated by 0 users

Nazi Germany and Red China etc. seem to the ignorant observer to be valid counter-examples, but in fact their destruction and interventionism was mostly inward-focused - mass murder within their borders.

You should rethink this. Nazi Germany killed almost exclusively non-Germans.

If we take Rothbard to mean that the US has been the most aggressive nation, externally, then that is clearly true. Take the period from 1900-1973 (when For A New Liberty was published, I think) and even then you will find that the US was more warlike than any other nation - think about the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

No it was not. The Japanese killed a hundred times more Chinese than were killed in the atomic bombings. And just in Leningrad the Germans starved to death more people than were killed in all of the Anglo-American bombings of German cities combined.

The US is clearly the most interventionist country around. It is only logical since it is the world hegemon (and was before that a hegemon over 2/3rds of the world, and before that a hegemon over the western hemisphere). But so far its hegemony has probably been less evil and murderous than a hegemony of eg Nazi Germany would had been.

Reply

Marko replied on Sun, Sep 12 2010 8:42 AM

rated by 0 users

Redmond, is there really a "friend"? Or are you throwing old stuff from Tom Palmer's blog on here and fishing for a reaction?