Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?: Oligarchy, Tyranny, and Ochlocracy in the Age of Global Capitalism 3030768201, 9783030768201

Citation preview

Ronald M. Glassman

Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century? Oligarchy, tyranny, and ochlocracy in the age of global capitalism

Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?

Ronald M. Glassman

Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century? Oligarchy, tyranny, and ochlocracy in the age of global capitalism

Ronald M. Glassman Stern College for Women Yeshiva University New York, NY, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-76820-1 ISBN 978-3-030-76821-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8

(eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

This book is dedicated to my wife Urania, whose ancient Greek forebears gave us democracy, and, to my sons, Daniel and Alexander, whose generation is entrusted with keeping democracy alive and vibrant.

Preface

As I write this Preface, the President of the United States has been impeached twice by the House of Representatives. A violent mob has attacked The Capitol. American democracy has been threatened. The democracy of the United States is the bright beacon to the world—the symbol of freedom and constitutionally guaranteed rights. If the American democracy is in jeopardy, then democracy is in danger all across the globe. In Europe, right-wing nationalist parties are threatening democracy, while England’s “Brexit” from the European Union has weakened democracy further. Dictators, such as Vladimir Putin, have successfully overridden previously democratic constitutions. Thus, Erdoğan in Turkey, Orbán in Hungary, and the Law and Justice Party in Poland, all seek to follow Putin’s footsteps. In the worldwide cyber world of the Internet, extremist blogs have emerged that threatened to create “ochlocracy”—the politics of mob rule, wherein angry crowds of extremist demonstrations take to the streets and act violently. And, most distressingly, totalitarianism, after being wiped out in Italy, Germany, and Russia after World War II, is now making a comeback in China—aided by the new surveillance technology being incorporated around the globe. With all this happening in the world, can democracy survive? This treatise analyzes the many threats to democracy that exist in the world today. Among these threats to democracy, we focus on: 1. The problem of oligarchy of the rich—will the billionaires dominate modern democracies? 2. Dictatorship of the poor—will Venezuela become the model for other developing nations where the poor can outvote the middle class? Will India’s democracy be threatened by the poor? 3. Will tyranny overcome democracy in Eastern Europe, Turkey, and the Philippines? 4. Will Xi Jinping establish a totalitarian government like the fictional 1984? Will modern technology create a totalitarianism so all-encompassing that the emerging new middle class cannot break out of it? vii

viii

Preface

All these political phenomena are playing out on the backdrop of global capitalism. High-technology industrial capitalism has dramatically altered the world. It has engendered a technological revolution—invented by the scientists, and spread by the global capitalist corporations. This high-tech revolution has created new automated and computerized processes of production, and new high-tech products as well. From Apple to Amazon, Google to Alibaba, computers, smart phones, and the World Wide Web have changed the world. However, this global capitalist system is challenged by geopolitical nationalism—each nation has its own geopolitical interests to defend. Therefore, the transnational corporations, though linking the world together economically do not link the world together politically. The conflict between economic and political interests is analyzed in this volume. So, too, is the realignment of the modern political parties in the advanced capitalist democratic nations. This political realignment is discussed in relation to both the new economic realities of global capitalism, and the new nationalism which has emerged in opposition to it.

Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny in Historical Perspective In this treatise, we discuss the rich against democracy, the poor against democracy, and tyranny overriding democracy—both dictatorship and totalitarianism. All of this is analyzed within the context of the modern technological revolution, but the historical background of each problem is also presented. So, for example, oligarchy of the rich is a threat to democracy in contemporary America. However, it was also a threat in ancient Greece, Renaissance Italy, and Enlightenment England. And, dictatorship of the poor is occurring, right now in Venezuela. But it was also a threat in Aristotle’s Greece. Finally, tyranny has as long a history as democracy—both are embedded in our DNA. For, Homo sapiens is, at once, a human being and an animal. As a primate, we defer to an alpha male leader; as a human being, we discuss decisions and participate in the arguments for and against political actions. Both democracy and tyranny are deeply embedded in our DNA. We are Homo sapiens, the unique animal that has heightened consciousness. Even totalitarianism has a history: from ancient Egypt to Nazi Germany, and now to Xi’s China, totalitarianism has haunted our history. 1984 may have come and gone, but “Big Brother” is still watching us and with better surveillance technology than has ever existed before. Therefore, totalitarianism is analyzed in this volume.

Preface

ix

The Modern Transition This treatise also describes the modern transition: a fourfold transition, involving an economic transition to advanced, high-tech, capitalism; a cultural transition from traditional religious and family values to norms focusing on racial equality, women’s equality, gay liberation, and multiculturalism; there is also a worldview transition, from the traditional religious worldview to the rational scientific worldview, and, from religious morality to secular humanist ethics. The cultural and worldview transitions lead us to a new zeitgeist for the modern era. And, as Max Weber has told us, all of this together—the economic, cultural, and worldview transformations—undergird political transition from traditional authority involving monarchy and aristocracy, to rational-legal authority, embodying constitutional law and democratic participation. The democratic participation is based on equality—equality before the law—such that every citizen has the right to vote, every citizen has the right to run for office. The political transition is difficult and depends upon a successful economic transition to advanced capitalism, and, an educational system based on the rational scientific worldview. Taken together, the new economic and educational systems generate a new middle class, which, when large enough, tends to stabilize legal democracy. Both capitalism and the rational scientific worldview enhance legal authority because contract law and the scientific study of “the laws of nature” reinforce the idea that laws, not men, guide our political actions. Tyranny—dictatorship—emerges among humans wherever legal authority is overridden. As Aristotle puts it, “when the law rules, God and reason rule; when a man rules, we add the character of the beast.” Finally, Emile Durkheim tells us that societies undergoing dramatic social change exhibit skyrocketing rates of deviance—homicide, suicide, rape, divorce, drug addiction, alcoholism—all from the loss of norms and values involved in the transition. Anomie, Durkheim’s term for the loss of norms and values, is often accompanied by political unrest. This unrest can cause political disorder, and where there is political disorder, demagogues and dictators will emerge promising to restore order—and some of these leaders will be charismatic. Thus, wherever these modern transitions become difficult, dictatorship may emerge and override democracy. Finally, human creativity, linked with the scientific worldview has produced new technologies that are revolutionizing our human intersubjective interactions. The “cyber world” connects us through personal email and ideologically extremist blogs. The extremist blogs create communities of people linked together by shared ideology, and they generate political action—demands for democracy, as in Egypt during the Arab Spring Uprising and Hong Kong protests against Beijing’s tyranny, and demands for dictatorship—as in Hungary and Poland.

x

Preface

Huge mobs of people are encouraged to take to the streets and protest—all organized through the cyber world’s blogosphere. Mob action, however, is ochlocracy, not democracy—it generates irrational, emotional “crowd psychology,” rather than reasoned debate and deliberation. Just look at the right-wing mob Trump supporters who tried to prevent the peaceful transition of power in the United States from Trump to Biden. This was ochlocracy—mob rule—rather than rational-legal democracy. Ochlocracy can destabilize democracy even though it does increase political participation. There is still hope, however. For global capitalism, the scientific worldview, and secular humanism all enhance democracy and legal authority. So, though the world is in turmoil as we go through these transitions, there is still hope that democracy, legal authority, and high-tech capitalism will be the best model for modern society in the near future. New York, NY, USA

Ronald M. Glassman

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this treatise combines five foundational elements derived from Max Weber, Aristotle, the evolutionary anthropologists, and the comparative-historical methodology. It also includes feminist theory, as a new perspective in socio-history. Also included is Durkheim’s theory of anomie and social deviance. For dictators often step up to restore “order” during periods of rapid social change and anomie. We must also add that the origins of democracy, as a purely human political phenomenon, assume a conception of human beings as both animal and human. “Homo duplex” is driven by animal drives while having the conscious awareness to analyze them. We are “Homo sapiens,” the animal that is consciously aware of ourselves, others, nature, and the universe. Democracy assumes the ability of humans to “intersubjectively” communicate with one another. In this sense, democracy brings out our most human characteristic: language, symbolic communication, and the building of a growing “stock of knowledge.” Let us look more closely.

Weberian Methodology 1. Max Weber, in Economy and Society, presents us with his theory of “legitimate domination.” He focuses on “traditional authority,” including the kingly patrimonial and kingly bureaucratic state; “legal-rational authority,” that is, the parliamentary democratic state with legal-constitutional constraints; and “charismatic authority,” which provides a temporary legitimation during periods of crisis or rapid social change. 2. Weber also in Economy and Society, and in the Methodology of the Social Sciences, develops his theoretical notion of “ideal types” and “civilizational peculiarities.” xi

xii

Theoretical Framework

The “ideal types” of political organization in tribes, city-states, and nation-states are developed out of the empirical data and then the “civilizational peculiarities” are also analyzed.

Aristotelian Theory 1. In the Constitution of Athens, Aristotle describes the transition from Greek tribal political organization—dominated by the military aristocrats, but with a democratic warriors’ assembly—to Greek city-state political organization. 2. In his Politics, Aristotle gives us a logical classification of the forms of government—a classification which can be used cross-culturally and trans-historically. Aristotle then links the forms of government to the class structure, analyzing oligarchy of the rich, democracy of the poor, and democracy with a middle-class majority—which he famously calls “polity,” because it is inclusive of elements of oligarchy, democracy, and even monarchy. Aristotelian theory, thus, gives us categories of comparison, a class analysis, and a comparative-historical framework for the analysis of political systems. Significantly, Aristotle also describes the varieties of kingships: from rudimentary tribal kingships to the “great” kingships of Persia and Egypt. Aristotle goes further beyond Greece in his description of the Phoenician citystates—especially Carthage—illustrating that his theoretical framework transcends ancient Greece. Lastly, Aristotle makes legal authority central by insisting that even a middleclass democracy must be constrained by constitutional law: “When the law rules, God and reason rule; when a man rules, we add the character of the beast.”

Feminist Theory Feminist theory has given us a new perspective in our quest to understand human history and social organization. History has been “his story,” as the feminists remind us. From feminist theory we can get a fresh perspective on the clan organization of tribes. Clan matrons in societies with matrilineal clans had political power. And women shaman were powerful figures within horticultural and early agricultural societies. “Mother nature,” the earth goddess and fertility goddess, spawned dominant female figures such as Enheduanna of Sumer, Jezebel of Tyre (or Biblical infamy), the Delphic Oracle, Nebula of the Zulus, and many more.

Theoretical Framework

xiii

There were also warrior queens such as Artemisia of Halicarnassus (as described by Herodotus) and Boudicca of Britain (as described by Caesar) along with great queens, such as Hatshepsut and Cleopatra of Egypt. Finally, there were intellectuals, such as Aspasia of Miletus and Athens, Sappho of Lesbos, and Hypatia of Alexandria who contributed to the cultural expansion and the rational scientific worldview of the Greeks.

The Comparative-Historical Framework As founder of the Section on Comparative-Historical Sociology of the American Sociological Association, of course I utilize the comparative-historical framework. The comparative-historical framework is not just an empirical process. Categories of comparison must be developed, and peculiar cases must be described.

Durkheim’s Theory of Anomie and Social Deviance Durkheim tells us that during periods of rapid social change, rates of deviance skyrocket. By deviance he means drug addiction, alcoholism, divorce, family break-up, suicide, and more. The rapid social change causes a loss of norms and values, engendering social confusion and political disorder. Dictators often step in to restore political order and reestablish norms and values. So, Durkheimian theory is insightful as we analyze the modern transitions occurring in the contemporary world. Durkheim’s theory of religious belonging and shared beliefs from his Elementary Forms of Religious Life, is also useful in our analysis of the contemporary transitions, especially since we will analyze the new world views of the twenty-first century.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Nico Stehr of Zeppelin University for his continuing support of my work, and, also Wilbert Van Vree of Amsterdam for his support. I would also like to thank my wife, Urania, whose computer skills and editing ability made this book possible. I would also like to thank George Rappaport, Lawrence and Carolyn Raphael, Gerald Score, Ira Glasser, and Stephen Cantor for their ongoing encouragement and enthusiastic support.

xv

Contents

1

Introduction: The Origins of Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Humans in the Scientific State of Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Democracy in Tribal Societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Despotism in Tribal Confederations: Kings and Priests . . . . . . . . . . . The Power of the Priests: Theocracy and the Divine Kingship . . . . . . Human History Becomes the History of Kings and Conquests . . . . . .

Part I 2

3

. . . . . .

1 1 4 6 8 11

. . . . . . .

15 15 16 17 18 19 20

.

21

. .

22 22

. .

23 26

. . . .

29 29 30 31

The Rich Against Democracy

Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny in the City-States of the Ancient World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City-States of the Ancient World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-Greek City-States of the Middle East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trade-Capitalism Emerges in the Independent City-States . . . . . . . . . Rich Merchant Oligarchs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oligarchy Predominates in the Pre-Greek City-States . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Ancient Greek City-States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Heavy Armored Hoplite Phalanx Empowers the Middle and Working Class and Their Warriors Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Spectacular Rise of Greek Trade-Capitalism and the Emergence of Economic Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Class Distinctions Based on Wealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Emergence of Rational-Legal Authority: The Rise of Science and Secular Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education and the New “Aristocratic” Elite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renaissance Italian City-States: The Triumph of Oligarchy and Tyranny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Arabic Golden Age Precedes the Italian Renaissance . . . . . . . . . The Italian Renaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oligarchy and Tyranny Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xvii

xviii

4

5

6

7

Contents

Oligarchy and Democracy in the German and Dutch Trade-Capitalist and Reformation City-States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Democracy Emerges in the German and Dutch Market City-States and Is Reinforced by the Reformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calvinism Legitimates the Rich as “God’s Stewards on Earth”: Oligarchy Gains Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oligarchy and Democracy in the Dutch Republic and Great Britain: The Emergence of Representative Democracy . . . . . . . . . The Dutch Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oligarchy, Democracy, and Monarchy in Great Britain . . . . . . . . . . . Puritanism Against the Church of England; Democracy Against Oligarchy and Monarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oligarchy and Grandiose (Yet Limited) Monarchy Characterized Great Britain into the Twentieth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Science, Law, and the Limitation of Power: British Political Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33 34 35

. . .

37 37 38

.

39

.

41

.

41

The Structure of High Technology Global Capitalism . . . . . . . . . . . Global Capitalism: Multinational Production and Transnational Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Global Capitalist Enterprises are Connected by Contract Law and Patent Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic “Imperialism” Links Global Corporations to Raw Materials Extraction in Developing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oligopoly, Monopoly, and Competition in the Global Capitalist System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Who Controls the Giant Oligopolistic Corporations, and, Why Does It Matter? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corporate and Financial Managers Take Salaries, Bonuses, and Stock Options That Are Much Too High . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Global Capitalism: Outsourcing and Automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

The Realignment of the Political Parties in the Advanced Capitalist Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Old Left and the New Left . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Old Capitalist Parties and the New High-Tech Capitalist Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 46 46 48 49 51 51 55 55 57

8

Global Capitalism vs. Geo-Political Nationalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The World Is Economically Linked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The World Is Politically Divided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 61 62

9

The Managerial and Entrepreneurial Rich Take a Huge Percentage of the Wealth to Themselves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair Wealth Distribution After World War II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The 1960s Radical Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63 63 63

Contents

xix

The Backlash Against the Sixties Radicalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The High-Technology Revolution Spawns a Class of Global Billionaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How the Rich Avoid Paying Taxes and Override Progressive Income Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Capital Gains Taxes on Stock Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hidden Bank Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Is the Withholding of Taxes by the Rich Disastrous Economically and Politically? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extremes of Wealth Destabilizes Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Are the New Rich of the Twenty-First Century an Aristocracy? . . . . . The Democratization of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Meritocracy and the New Middle Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Is There Anything Good About the Aristocratic Lifestyle? . . . . . . . . .

.

64

.

66

. . .

67 67 68

. . . . . .

69 69 70 71 72 73

Taxing the Rich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Progressive Income Tax Revitalized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raising the Capital Gains Tax Above 15% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Financial Transaction Tax: The Tiny Tax That Generates Billions in Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Value Added Tax and a Luxury Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hidden Bank Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions on Oligarchy of the Rich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preventing Oligarchy from Over-Influencing and Over-Riding Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Campaign Finance Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limiting Lobbying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

75 75 77

. . . .

77 78 79 80

. . .

82 82 83

11

Aristotle on the Problem of a Majority Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Case of Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Note on India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87 88 91

12

Africa and the Traditional Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tribalism and Islamic Terrorism Impede Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Traditional Rural Poor in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93 93 95

13

The Middle East: The Sunni-Shia Split; Radical Islam; Tribalism; and Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Modern Sectors of the Cities Versus the Traditional Majority Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Egypt and “The Arab Spring” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syria and Iraq: Religious and Ethnic Divisions Impede Nation-Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Sunni-Shia Split . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

Part II

The Poor Against Democracy

.

97

. .

97 98

. .

99 99

xx

Contents

Syria: The Assad Dictatorship and the Shia (Alawite) Repression of the Sunnis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Iraq: American Invasion, Shia Versus Sunni, Arabs Versus Kurds . . . . . 102 Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 14

The Poor, The Military, and Tyranny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Case of China: A Billion People, No Shortage of Military Recruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iran, Theocracy and the Persian Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Ayatollah Muslim Theocracy and the Persian Guard Army Versus the Middle Class and Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part III 15

16

17

. 105 . 105 . 107 . 108

Tyranny

The Origins of Tyranny: From the War Chief and Shaman to Divine Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Democracy and Tyranny: Both Intrinsic to the Human Political Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Origins of Tyranny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From War Chief to “King” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Role of the Priesthood in the Establishment of Kingship . . . . . . . The Shaman Becomes a Priesthood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Benevolent” Kings Versus Tyrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manufactured Charisma and Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Emergence of Tyranny Without Traditional Kingship . . . . . . The City-States of the Middle East Retain Traditional Kingship in Limited Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Abolition of Monarchy and the Absence of an Institutionalized Priesthood in the Greek City-States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Greek City-States Rise as Trading Cities with No Kings and No Priests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal Rule Without the Legitimacy of Traditional Kingship . . . . . Herodotus and the Forms of Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Critique of Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aristotle on the Decline of Kingship and the Rise of Tyranny . . . . . . How Do Tyrants Maintain Their Power and Gain Some Modicum of Legitimacy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Power, Terror, Order, and Charisma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charisma: Real and Manufactured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Word on Tyranny in Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The World Beyond Greece and Rome: Divine Kingship Makes Democracy Inconceivable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 113 . . . . . . .

113 114 115 118 120 121 123

. 127 . 127 . 129 . . . . .

129 130 130 132 132

. . . .

133 135 135 136

. 139

Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny in the Italian City-States . . . . 141 Machiavelli and His Handbook for Successful Tyranny . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Contents

18

19

20

21

xxi

Tyranny During the English and French Revolutions: Cromwell, Napoleon and Louis Napoleon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Renaissance Spreads Northward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cromwell as Revolutionary Democrat, Fanatical Puritan, and, Tyrant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The French Revolution and Napoleon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century: Fascism and Nazism, Mass Mobilization and Mass Murder . . . . . Italy and Mussolini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mussolini and Machiavelli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manufactured Charisma and the Beginnings of Totalitarian . . . . . . . . Fascist Manufactured Charisma Rivals Divine Kingship as a Legitimation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hitler and Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hitler Adds Racism to the Nazi Ideology: Mass Murder and Genocide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

146 148 151 151 153 154

. 155 . 156 . 158

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century: Communism—Utopian Dreams and Totalitarianism Reality . . . . . . Utopian Dreams: Karl Marx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marxism-Leninism: As a Model for Rapid Industrialization . . . . . . . . . Enter Stalin: The Dream Becomes a Nightmare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic Problems of Communism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Rise and Fall of Communism in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enter Sun Yat-sen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mao Follows the Marxism-Leninism Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mao Goes Totalitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Capitalist Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xi Jinping Institutes Technological Totalitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North and South Korea: Communism and Tyranny Versus Capitalism and Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Totalitarianism: Tyranny Taken to a Terrifying Level Totalitarianism as a New Political Phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Repression, Terror and Participation in Nazi Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . Stalin Copies the Nazi Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technological Totalitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xi Jinping and His Totalitarian Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Roots of Totalitarianism: From Ancient Egypt to Modern China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Origins of the Divine Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Totalitarian Projects in Egypt and Mesopotamia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . China: Divine Kings and Confucian Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modern China and Mao’s Totalitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xi Jinping and Modern Totalitarianism in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North and South Korea: Competing Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

145 145

159 159 162 163 163 164 165 167 167 168 169 170

. . . . .

173 173 174 175 176

. . . . . . .

177 178 181 182 183 184 185

xxii

Contents

North Korea: Stalinism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 South Korea: Capitalism and Democracy Succeeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 22

Illiberal Democracy: A New Form of Modern Tyranny . . . . . . . . . . The New Nationalism Versus Global Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Revival of Traditional Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Support from the Less Well-Educated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Putin and Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Viktor Orbán and Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poland: “Justice and Order”—Jaroslaw Kaczynski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recep Tayyip Erdoğan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Note on Modi and India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions on Tyranny: The “Beast” Within Us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part IV

191 191 192 192 192 195 198 200 203 204

Ochlocracy: Mob Rule and Crowd Psychology in the Cybersphere

23

Ochlocracy as a Critique of Democracy in the Ancient Greek World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Herodotus and the Debate Over the Forms of Government . . . . . . . . . . 207 Polybius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

24

Ochlocracy Disappears: The Rise of Representative Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 The Representative Parliament and Polite Rules of Order . . . . . . . . . . . 215 The British Gentry Make Good Manners Central to the Social and Political Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

25

Ochlocracy in the Cybersphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Worldwide Web: The Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extremist Blogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Printing Press and Extremist Pamphlets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extremist Blogs and Their Political Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terrorism and the Extremist Blogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ochlocracy in the Cyberworld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hacking and Misinformation Encourage Ochlocracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions on Ochlocracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . President Donald J. Trump and Mob Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part V 26

. . . . . . . . . . .

219 219 220 221 221 222 223 223 225 226 226

. . . .

231 231 232 236

The Modern Transition: A Fourfold Process—Economic, Cultural, Worldview, and Political

The Economic Transition to High Technology Industrial Capitalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developed, Developing, and Underdeveloped Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . The Transition to Advanced Capitalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

27

28

29

xxiii

The Cultural Transition: From Traditional Religious Values to P.C. Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Cultural Transition: From Traditional Religious Family and “Tribal” Values to the “Politically Correct” Values, on Racial Equality, Gender Equality, Gay Liberation, and Multiculturalism . . . . Racial Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender Equality: Women’s Liberation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gay Liberation and New Definitions of Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiculturalism Versus “Tribalism” and Nationalism . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

239 239 241 242 243

The New Worldview: The Rational Scientific Worldview, and, Secular Humanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hegel and Human Consciousness of Self and the World . . . . . . . . . . The Rational-Scientific Worldview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secular Humanism and Modern Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Modern Zeitgeist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

247 247 248 249 252

The Political Transition: From Traditional Authority (Monarchy) to Electoral Democracy with Legal-Rational Authority . . . . . . . . . Traditional Authority (Monarchy and Aristocracy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rational Legal Authority and Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rational-Legal Authority Is Reinforced by the Rational-Scientific Worldview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Contract Law of Capitalism Reinforces Legal Authority . . . . . . . Educational Equality and Democratic Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education, the Expanding New Middle Class, Equality, and Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The New Middle Class of the Twenty-First Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Majority Middle Class and Political Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions to the Fourfold Modern Transition: Durkheim, Social Change and Anomie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weber, Political Transitions and Charismatic Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 239

. 253 . 253 . 254 . 254 . 256 . 257 . 259 . 260 . 260 . 262 . 263

Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 President Trump Against Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Chapter 1

Introduction: The Origins of Democracy Democracy as a Uniquely Human Political Process

Humans in the Scientific State of Nature Why should we maintain any hope of a world trending towards democracy? To answer this question, let us look at humans in the “scientific state of nature.” Modern political theorists have superseded Hobbes’ philosophical “state of nature”1 with a scientific state of nature. Theorists such as Azar Gat2 have utilized the scientific state of nature to analyze the human proclivity for war. Conrad Lorenz3 has emphasized human aggression and the dominance structure within human groups. Humans are group animals. As Aristotle put it, “only Gods and beasts lived alone; humans are a political animal, everywhere and always found in groups.”4 Given the fact that we live in groups, the dominance, submission, and “pecking order” of human groups have been emphasized by modern “state of nature” theorists. Books like, The Naked Ape,5 The Human Zoo,6 and African Genesis,7 describe human politics as similar to the group dynamics of chimpanzee bands—the chimps being our closest relatives, sharing much of our DNA. Jane Goodall’s In the Shadow of Man,8 beautifully describes chimpanzee life and emphasizes the dominance— submission and pecking order “politics” of chimpanzee bands. However, we are not chimpanzees. We are a different species. We are homo sapiens—the hominid that “knows.” 1

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Penguin, London, 1951. Azar Gat, War in Civilization, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004. 3 Konrad Lorenz On Aggression, NY, Harcourt 1963. 4 Aristotle, Politics. 5 Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape, NY, Amazon Paperback, 2015. 6 Desmond Morris, The Human Zoo, NY, Google Paperback, 2014. 7 Richard Audrey, African Genesis, NY, Amazon Paperback, 2011. 8 Jane Goodall, In the Shadow of Man, Boston Houghton Mifflin, 1971. 2

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_1

1

2

1 Introduction: The Origins of Democracy

Our key species characteristic—the characteristic that facilitated our move from an insignificant hominid to world domination—is our increased intelligence and our conscious awareness of ourselves, others, other animals, nature, and the universe. Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and she gave some to Adam, and he ate, and their eyes were opened. . . .9

Our brain increased in size and our intelligence and awareness of the world increased dramatically. With this greater, awareness of the world and other humans, and with the consequent development of our “voice box,” humans created language. And, with language, our “inter-subjective” interaction increased in depth. Our conscious awareness of each other and our increasingly sophisticated language skills allowed humans to discuss everything and anything. Men discussed hunting strategies, women gathering destinations. Informal discussion groups emerged—sometimes gendered, sometimes not. And, the older members of the group, who had experienced more, were looked to for advice. Collective wisdom would be passed down to the next generation. From these informal discussion groups, more formal discussion groups eventually emerged. A new form of political institutions—the “campfire” discussion council—emerged. Sometimes it was dominated by the men, when they discussed hunting and war. Sometimes it included the entire group, especially when a move to a new territory was undertaken. Often, the elders—both men and women—led the discussions. This new, specifically human, political institution—the democratic discussion council—typified most hunting—gathering societies.10 Dominance, submission, and pecking order status continued to exist amongst humans. There were headmen, who lead in the discussion counsel; headmen who lead in war; leading women who organized the gathering activities and helped the young women in childbirth. Men attempted to dominate through strength and weapons skills; cliques of men dominated others. But, we are not chimpanzees. Excessive assertions of power or violence were sometimes actively inhibited within hunting-gathering bands. They would say “this headman has gotten too big,” and they would slip away in the night, leaving him alone and vulnerable.11 Further, old chimpanzees are not valued. Whereas the wisdom of the experienced aged was venerated amongst humans, motivating the band to keep the elders alive— if they could.12 Another factor that differentiates humans from chimps is this: though conscious awareness of the world, and our language skills give us our greatest species

9

Bible, Adam & Eve, Oxford Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1991. Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer International Publishers, 2017. 11 Lorna Marshall, Kung! Bushmen, NH, Yale University Press, 1958. 12 Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States and Nation-States. 10

Humans in the Scientific State of Nature

3

advantage, this same heightened awareness engendered “existential anxiety.” That is, because we became aware of our own impending death, and, because we do not understand why we were born, why we are here, how we should behave, and what the vast seemingly infinite universe means, we humans become frightened. “And—Eve and Adam ate of the tree of knowledge, and they became ashamed of their nakedness and frightened. . .”.13 Emile Durkheim14 has shown us that every human group has some sort of religious belief system: myths of creation, myths of destruction, belief in magic, spirits, and taboos, and ritual activities in which the entire group participated. Those individuals who seem to have a connection to the world of “spirits” gained high status, and sometimes power. Chimpanzees do not bow down to a weak, old member of the band who can interpret their dreams and explain “omens”. But, humans do—look at the millions who come out to touch the hand of the Pope, in this modern world, where the rational-scientific world-view is supposed to predominate! So, what is the point here? The point is that humans—homosapiens sapiens— even conceived of in the scientific state of nature—exhibit political institutions which are more complex than, and different from, other animals. Yes, we can succumb to power and violence, but we also have the potential to follow spiritual leaders, and, most importantly for this thesis, in the human state of nature, democracy emerged as a unique political institution, based on our key species characteristic—heightened intelligence and awareness and inter-subjective language skills. Even Hobbes, in his philosophical state of nature, has humans—who had been killing each other and stealing from each other, such that “life was solitary, nasty, brutish and short”15—come together, and through discussion, create a “social contract” by which they give up their individual power to a “strong sovereign state”, which could create order and peace.16 Thus, the discussion council—though gendered and age-graded—became a human political institution, and, once bands expanded and became “tribes”, the tribes continued to exhibit democratic political processes—along with attempts at domination. Let us look at both the democratic and despotic institutions of tribes.

13

Bible, Adam & Eve, Oxford Study Bible, University of Oxford Press, 1991. Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, NY Free Press, 1952. 15 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, London, Penguin, 1951. 16 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. 14

4

1 Introduction: The Origins of Democracy

Democracy in Tribal Societies When the human group expanded beyond the hunting-gathering band level, democracy continued to be exhibited. With the larger population, the democratic discussion groups became more structured. Clan councils and representative tribal councils emerged.17 When homosapiens added horticulture or animal herding to their huntinggathering activities, the population size of the human group increased. The pairing family was superseded by the extended family, or clan, and the clans of a given designated area exhibited a shared identity, language, and culture—they make up the “tribe.” In most hunting-horticultural tribes, the clans were matrilineal, organized around women’s gardening role. While in herding societies, the clans were usually patrilineal, organized around men’s herding role.18 It was typical in tribal societies that the clans elected a headman. The headman had to be a mature man because wisdom was gained through experience. The headman had to be a man, because only men could negotiate with other tribes and declare war, if negotiations failed.19 However, in tribes with matrilineal clans, the women had the vote—both women and men voted for the headman and, could vote to remove the headman if he was deemed incompetent.20 (In “suffragette” America, Susan B. Anthony announced the beginning of the movement in Seneca Falls, NY, because the Seneca women of the matrilineal clans of the Iroquois League told her that they had always had the vote). Still, though they could vote, a woman could not become a headperson, because only the male elders were the warrior-protectors of the tribe. In tribes with patrilineal clans, women could not vote or attend the tribal council.21 Each clan, then, chose a headman and these headmen came together in a tribal council—the council of elders. The elders—wise with experience and less “passionate” than the younger men—formed a tribal democratic discussion group, with carefully delineated rules and regulations. After debate amongst themselves, in many tribes, the elders would then sit, surrounded by an assembly of warriors, including all the younger men, and the war chief or chiefs. In large tribal gatherings, the women and children would sit outside the circle of warriors, but close enough to hear what was going on. In some tribes, a woman could choose a man to speak for her at the tribal assembly. The Iroquois tribes exhibited this.22 17

Glassman, Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States. Ibid (Horticulture and Matriclans). 19 Ibid (Herding and Patricians). 20 Ibid (Women Vote in Matriclans). 21 Ibid (Norse Tribes; Women Could Not Vote). 22 Ibid; see also, Morgan, Ancient Society. 18

Democracy in Tribal Societies

5

Finally, most tribes had a “law speaker,” who would open the tribal assembly with a recitation of the tribal customary laws and punishments and, the founding myths. The law speakers often sung this litany, as with the “bards” of the Celtic and Norse tribes.23 The tribal democracy of the Iroquois League was so well-structured that the British and Dutch colonists fashioned their “Articles of Confederations,” in part, on the representative democratic structure of the Iroquois League. Lastly, it must be emphasized that the tribal democratic assembly and council of elders, functioned as both a legislature and a judicial body. Policy was debated, and individual court cases were tried. The council of elders had the final say on court cases, while the warrior’s assembly had sway on policy issues. Often, “unanimity” in decision-making was demanded; without unanimity a policy might not get implemented. This “unanimity principle”24 characterized most tribes, until the Greeks of the Golden Age institutionalized majority voting. Now let us look at herding tribes. Where animal herding was combined with some hunting and some horticulture, patrilineal clans usually were typical. As mentioned, these clans were more male dominant. Women were excluded from voting for the clan headman. Furthermore, certain clans became designated as warrior-clans, “descended from the Gods,” and gaining aristocratic status.25 Nonetheless, tribal democracy was exhibited amongst these tribes. In the Scandinavian, Dutch and German tribes, all the men and many of the women, came together for formal meetings at designated times of year. The meetings were called the “thing” by the northern tribes.26 At the “thing” the assembly of all warriors would meet, led by a council of aristocrats. A law-speaker would recite the rules and punishments and founding myths. Then discussion would begin. The “thing” was both a legislative and judicial body, with the aristocrats having the final say on legal decisions, with the law-speaker acting in an advisory capacity.27 As with the Iroquois Confederation of Tribes, the Norse tribes also held confederated gatherings. These they called the “Althing.” At the “Althing,” all the tribes of a given region gathered on a regular basis and just as the elders dominated, the Iroquois, the Aristocrats dominated the “Viking” tribes. The “thing” and “Althing” are well documented in The Icelandic Sagas.28

23

Glassman, Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States (Norse Tribes, the Law Speaker) see also, The Icelandic Sagas. 24 Glassman, Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States and Nation-States (The “Unanimity Principle” of Tribes). 25 Glassman, Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States and Nation-States. 26 The Icelandic Sagas, edited by Orlinorfur Thornsen, London, Penguin, Deluxe edition, 1997. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid.

6

1 Introduction: The Origins of Democracy

Also, in The Icelandic Sagas is the remarkable detailed description of the emergence of a unified military kingship—overriding the “Althing”—in Norway and Denmark.29 This brings us to our next point. The Paradox of Tribes—or should we say the paradox of human beings?! That is, from the tribal confederations, we can already see how despotic military kingship and even theocratic despotisms, could emerge. Let us look at the office of war—chief first.

Despotism in Tribal Confederations: Kings and Priests Once horticulture and animal herding were invented, human tribal societies expanded in population size. This lead to more encroachment on neighboring lands. And, in turn, this led to the intensification of warfare. Warfare had always been part of the human condition. Azar Gat in War in Civilization,30 describes the violent raids and counter-raids that occurred even amongst band societies, such as the Australian Aborigines. As warfare intensified, the status and power of the war chiefs rose. These chiefs developed loyal retinnes of young warriors, who would follow their lead in war— and even in peacetime. The authority of the clan elders was supreme in the tribal assemblies. But, the war chiefs began to hold equal status with the elders and, as warfare intensified and preparation for war became more continuous, the war chiefs began to assert their authority within the tribe and the tribal confederation. Some attempted to extend their power over the clan elders. Fearing that the war chiefs might become despots, ruling through the force and violence of their loyal retinnes, some tribal societies created a dual office, such that two war chiefs would be elected and balance each other’s power. The Iroquois League exhibited this dual war chief system. And in colonial times, this dual system seems to have prevented the emergence of a despotic chieftainship. The Spartans—famous amongst the Greeks for their warrior prowess—also exhibited a dual war chief system. The Spartans had two kings—they acted as generals in time of war and they did balance each other out in peacetime. They sat on the council of elders and spoke at the warriors’ assembly—but they sometimes disagreed, and they never became despots.31 The Romans seem to have copied the Spartan war organization, learned, in part, from the Spartan colonies in Southern Italy. They began to fight, in phalanx formation, and they elected two war chiefs: the “consuls”. Later on in history, when the Spartans created the peculiar democratic offices of the “ephors”—whose 29

Ibid (Kingship in Norway: Harold). Azar Gat, War in Civilization. 31 Glassman, Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States and Nation-States (Spartans) two kinds. 30

Despotism in Tribal Confederations: Kings and Priests

7

job it was to reign in the power of the Kings and the aristocratic elders—the Romans copied the ephorate by appointing the “tribunes” of the people, to reign in the power of the aristocratic senate and its two consuls.32 However, in most post-tribal societies, where horticulture and animal herding replaced hunting-gathering, the war chief and his loyal retinnes claimed increasing power over and above the clan elders and the tribal assembly. As mentioned, The Icelandic Sagas33 give us the most wonderful and detailed description of this process amongst the Norwegian tribes. According to the Sagas, King Harold gathered around him a loyal retinne of aristocratic Viking warriors. He then systematically forced the loyalty of all the other aristocrats and commoners. Those who agreed to follow his lead were rewarded with land and gifts and wealth. Those who opposed him were murdered, and their land and wealth confiscated, their families pushed off their land or killed, their women given as slaves to loyal retinne members. In a 20-year period of consolidation, Harold annihilated all opposition ruthlessly and gathered around him an invincible regiment of paladins. The fascinating part about this historical process is that a small group of Norwegian tribe-people refused to give in and fled to Iceland. Iceland was far enough away that Harold did not pursue these colonists—he was more interested in raiding to the South and Southwest where post-Roman treasurers awaited his raiders. In Iceland, the runaways re-established the tribal democracy—the “thing” and the “Althing” were regularly convened, and still acted as the legislative and judicial institution of the Icelanders. The “thing” and the “Althing” were still dominated by the warrior aristocrats, but the commoners had their say and these tribal assemblies. The Icelandic tribal democracy was maintained into the Christian period (1100 A.D.) and beyond. But, the Norwegian military chieftainship—Kingship—became the typical mode of political organization all across Europe, as the Norse tribes conquered France, Italy, Spain and Britain. Fascinatingly, where the military Kings failed to conquer, the tribal democracy was maintained. Hence, in the high mountains of Switzerland, and the low salt marshes of the Netherlands, Norse tribal democracy continued into the era of the Enlightenment.34 So, the paradox of the human species continued: tribal democracy being overridden in most areas of the world yet surviving in some. We shall describe the survival of tribal democracy in the city—states of the Middle East and Greece shortly. First, we must add one more factor to the rapidly

32 Glassman, Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States and Nation-States (Spartans’ Ephron’s) see also, Glassman, Rome’s Tribunes (in Sparta Section); see also, Polybius, Early Roman History, and Bk VI; London Penguin, 2000; see also Titus Livins, Early Roman History, London, Penguin Paperback, 2002. 33 The Icelandic Sagas (King Harold). 34 Glassman, Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States and Nation-States (Swiss and Dutch).

8

1 Introduction: The Origins of Democracy

spreading political institution of the military kingship. For, Kings are just war chiefs, unless they become conceived of as gods. Once the war chief is viewed as godly, then he becomes a “King.” To be viewed as a God, the war chiefs needed the support of the priests.

The Power of the Priests: Theocracy and the Divine Kingship I have described how human beings, because of our bigger brain, developed not only intelligence and speech, but a heightened awareness of ourselves in the universe. This conscious awareness is our key species characteristic—we are homosapiens, the species that “knows.” I also described the fact that this heightened awareness is a double-edged sword, at once allowing us to dominate the earth, and yet causing us “existential anxiety.” The existential anxiety devolves from the knowledge that our own death is imminent, and the death of our loved ones is also inevitable. Death can occur from natural or human causes—diseases, earthquakes, murder or war. Both the natural and the social world inculcate anxieties. As Durkheim has emphasized, most human societies have religious beliefs: myths of creation, rituals to alleviate anxiety, taboos and totems with magical powers, and a belief in “the world of spirits”—harmful spirits and protective spirits. In most human societies, shaman—male and female—arose as healers of the sick, interpreters of dreams and omens, and leaders of the religious rituals of the group. As with the war chief, the Shaman, or priests, came to hold high status, and to gain power.35 The power of the war chief is straightforward: military might, an unorganized retineue of young men who will kill anyone who does not obey the chief. But, the priests had power as well! They could heal, using herbs and hypnotic trances, and they could kill, using poison, and hypnotic trances. They could put the fear of the spirit-world into the people—spirits could be evil and kill, or spirits could be good and heal. The priests and the priestesses knew how to invoke the spirits. In this way, the priests developed power. Some societies, such as those of West Africa with the Poro Cults, developed frightening theocracies—“voodoo” still scares the descendants of these West African societies in the Caribbean and Brazil.36 And, the ancient Jews held the “prophets” in such high esteem, that they could and did, challenge the authority of the war kings.37 In fact, after the Babylonian exile, when Cyrus the Great of Persia allowed

35

Glassman, Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States and Nation-States (Tribal Shaman). G.M. Harley, Poro Cults of West Africa, and, Masks as Agents of Social Control, N.C., Duke University Press, 1968. 37 Bible, Prophets, Oxford Study Bible. 36

The Power of the Priests: Theocracy and the Divine Kingship

9

the Jews to repatriate Israel, Ezra, “the second Moses” created a theocracy—a society ruled by a council of priests—with no war king.38 The Kingship was revived by the Maccabees in the Hellenistic period, but, as Josephus tells us, the council of priests—the Sanhedrin-had authority beyond the Kings.39 The Kings were not accepted as legitimate. The Herods, the last Kings, were appointed by the Romans and never accepted by the Jews. The theocratic Sanhedrin, as the New Testament of the Christians tells us four times over, was the ruling institution of the Jews in the Roman era.40 Theocracies, however, were not typical. Increasingly, devastating warfare made the war chieftainship more typical for post-tribal societies. The war chiefs, however, were not accepted as fully legitimate in their domination of the tribes. Just look at the Icelanders who ran away, or, Confucius’ rejection of the warring Dukes, who were causing hideous violence in their uncontrolled warfare, and violating the clan rituals that helped produce order amongst the Chinese.41 And, there is Aristotle’s dictum that kingly domination turns their subjects into slaves42 or Samuel’s warning in the Bible that if the Jews chose a war King, he will have their sons killed in endless wars and their daughters turned to slavery,43 and Locke, that Kings inevitably become tyrants and brutalize their subjects.44 So, how did the war chiefs gain legitimacy? How did military chieftainship become “kingships?” How did the kingly state become what Max Weber called “traditional authority?” It was the merger of military power with religious belief that created the legitimate domination we call “kingship”. If the war chief becomes conceived of as “divine”—descended from the gods and, embodying god, then the people will bow down, crawl on their knees, “kowtow,” and act slave-like. Once the people believe the King is divine, then they believe he has the right to rule—they give their “consent” to be dominated. This consent is genuine where the people believe the King and the “Royal Family” are god-like.45 Of course, this legitimation is not rational. It is based on fear of the gods, and, fear of the King. This irrational legitimacy is bolstered by the organized priesthoods that usually accompany such monarchies. Egypt is the most extreme example. There, the priests not only purveyed the belief that the Pharaohs were godly, but also administered the kingdom. They were the bureaucratic officials making sure that the economy ran

38

Bible, Book of Ezra and Nehemiah, Oxford Study Bible. Josephus, Roman-Jewish War; Jewish Antiquities; London, Penguin Paperback 1953. 40 The Christian Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, Oxford Study Bible. 41 Confucius, The Analects, NY, Amazon Paperback, 2005. 42 Aristotle, Politics (on Kingship). 43 Bible, Book of Samuel, Oxford Study Bible. 44 John Locke, First Treatise on Civil Government, Oxford, Oxford University, Press, 1952. 45 Aristotle, Politics (on Kingship). 39

10

1 Introduction: The Origins of Democracy

well—they supervised the Nile flood-control agriculture—and that the kings were made to seem divine.46 The pyramids are the visible symbols of the King’s godliness—even after death—their soul’s being protected along with their mummified bodies. China was similar to Egypt even though the Mandarin
officials were technically secular. That is, following Confucius’ ideas, a stratum of very well-educated officials, was institutionalized to administer China under the authority of the Emperor.47 The Emperor ruled “with the mandate from Heaven”—he was godly—no one could look into his eyes—all who approached him had to crawl on their bellies and cower before him. The Emperor could have anyone struck dead on the spot who dared to violate these rules. And Confucius insisted that all rituals be carefully and precisely carried out— ritualized behavior characterized all formal and political interactions. And, rituals of extreme submission were enacted in relation to the Emperor.48 Furthermore, even though Confucius would not discuss God or the soul or the afterlife, he insisted that ancestor worship be carefully maintained. There is no doubt that within this cultural context, the Emperor of China was conceived of as just as godly as the Pharaohs of Egypt. And, the Mandarin officials played a similar role as the Egyptian priests in administering the empire, and, in legitimating the King.49 Just one more point. In order to ensure that the people really believed in their divinity, the Kings and their “royal” families developed all kinds of “manufactured charismatic” effects to enhance their divinity.50 They dressed in magnificent clothing, wore golden crowns, held golden scepters, sat on jeweled thrones and lived in magnificent palaces. On their deaths the priests and officials made sure that their tombs were as magnificent as their palaces—for a God was being buried there, not a man. These manufactured effects did enhance the charisma of the King, his family and his officials. The people saw someone so magnificent, that in truth, they seemed to be seeing a God.

46

Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1948. Confucius, The Analects. 48 Ibid. 49 Max Weber, The Religion of China, NY Free Press, 1953. 50 Ronald M. Glassman and William Swatos, Jr., Charisma, History and Social Structure (“Manufactured Charisma”), NY Praeger, 1981. 47

Human History Becomes the History of Kings and Conquests

11

Human History Becomes the History of Kings and Conquests The divine Kingship and the Kingly-bureaucratic state spread through military conquest in most areas of the world. So common did the Kingly-bureaucratic state become that Weber could call it “traditional authority”,51 and, where it did not occur, as in ancient Greece, this was considered an anomaly—a strange atypical case. And, it did seem that way, for, once divine Kingly conquests expanded, human history became the history of Kings and battles. In areas where the divine Kingly state became institutionalized democracy became inconceivable—the people were “commoners,” the rulers “Gods”. The King and his officials had the right to rule because it was conferred on them by the Gods. This was legitimate authority, as mentioned, because the people did consent to be ruled by the divine King. However—as we have stressed—this is irrational legitimacy because the King and the rulers were, of course, not Gods. And, any person or group who dared oppose the rulers was killed—with great public display in order to terrorize the population into submission. In societies like Egypt and China, the vast majority of the people did believe that the King and his officials ruled with the mandate of the Gods and were therefore godly. Hence, they did consent to such rule. But—and we wish to emphasize this—Kings and battles do not make up all of human history. And, in fact, tribal democracy did not disappear from every area on earth. For the city-states of the Middle East and the Aegean regions continued to exhibit vestiges of tribal democracy, but now in a new form.

Max Weber, Economy and Society “Legitimate Domination,” Translated by Claus Wittich and Guenther Roth, NY, Bedminster Press, 1971.

51

Part I

The Rich Against Democracy

Chapter 2

Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny in the City-States of the Ancient World

Everywhere democracy has emerged historically, it has been linked with some form of capitalism: trade-capitalism in the ancient and Renaissance city-states; industrial capitalism in the Enlightenment nation-states; and advanced, or high technology, capitalism in the modern world. However, it is also true that capitalism has been historically linked with oligarchy—in the ancient Greek and Renaissance city-states, in the early industrial nationstates, and in today’s high-tech nation states as well. In fact, in the Ancient and Renaissance city-states, oligarchy preceded democracy, and in many of these city-states, it superseded democracy entirely, preventing democracy from emerging at all. In the modern world of advanced, global capitalism, oligarchy of the rich is still a major problem. For, the wealth and power of the contemporary capitalist rich can create economic inequality of such an extreme level as to destabilize and heretofore democratic polity. In order to better understand the contemporary world, let us look at the history of oligarchy and democracy as they emerged in the Ancient and Renaissance citystates. Then, we shall analyze the nation-states in their industrial and hightechnology forms. We will be focusing on oligarchy and democracy in this analysis, but, tyranny— dictatorship and kingship—will be analyzed later in this treatise.

City-States of the Ancient World We have asserted that some form of capitalism was the economic system linked historically with both oligarchy and democracy. We shall describe this linkage in the city-states of Sumer, Syria, Phoenicia, and Greece. However, we must first make it clear that an earlier prehistorical form of democracy, and, tyranny, existed amongst tribes. And these tribes did not exhibit any kind © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_2

15

16

2 Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny in the City-States of the Ancient World

of capitalism. Their economic base was hunting-gathering, or, as they developed, either hunting—horticultural, or herding. We mentioned tribal democracy and war-chief tyranny because these political institutions were carried over into the independent city-states of the Middle East and the Mediterranean region, and into the centralizing monarchies as well. We have described tribal democracy and war-chief tyranny in a previous two-volume work entitled The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States (Springer International, 2017).1 Here we wish to focus on the politics of the ancient city-states. Let us look at the pre-Greek city-states first because they emerged earlier historically.

Pre-Greek City-States of the Middle East In The Epic of Gilgamesh2 written in ancient Sumarian (then translated into Semitic), the political institutions of the Sumarian city-states are described: Gilgamesh, the war-chief, comes to the Council of Elders and tells them he wants to declare war on a competitive city-state nearby. The Council of Elders tells him, “No.” Gilgamesh then goes to the Warriors Assembly and asks them. They vote, “Yes.” Gilgamesh brings this “yes” vote to the elders, and they give in, allowing Gilgamesh to prepare for war. We can see from this remarkable literary masterpiece that The Institutions of Tribal Democracy were carried over into the Middle Eastern city-states before they were altered by the trade-capitalist economy that would emerge in some of these city-states—and before extensive warfare engendered the centralized state dominated by a war-King and legitimated by an institutionalized priesthood. In tribes, the Council of Clan Elders was elected from each clan, and these elders sat in the center when the tribal democracy was convened. The elders were considered “wise” because of the knowledge they gained over their lifetime. And, they were considered “wise” because they were less controlled by the passions—aggressions and sexuality—of younger men. The elders held great prestige and high status—they were looked to for policy decisions, and for law court judging.3 Because tribes were constantly encroaching on other tribe’s territories, warfare was a constant issue. Therefore, most tribes exhibited a Warriors Assembly. Since women were “encumbered” by constant pregnancy and continuous breast-feeding needs, in most tribes, women were not included in the Warriors Assembly. In hunting-horticultural tribes, such as the Iroquois League, women had the vote in the clans, and did vote for the clan elder who would sit on the Council of Elders at the

1

Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer International Publishers, 2017. 2 Epic of Gilgamesh, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1963. 3 Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer International Publishers, 2017.

Trade-Capitalism Emerges in the Independent City-States

17

tribal gatherings. However, the Iroquois women could not sit in the Warriors Assembly, and because of “child encumbrance” could not go to war—though the women’s gardening groups produced 70% of the food consumed by the Iroquois tribes.4 Along with the council of wise clan elders, and the hot-headed male Warriors Assembly, a war chief existed in many tribes, who led the men in battle. During peacetime, the War Chief had no special prestige at the tribal Council. However, when warfare became wider and more intense, the war chiefs asserted their power even during peacetime lulls, and sometimes developed a loyal retinue of warriors, who backed him up and increased his power. This process eventuated in “chieftainships,” and then “kingships”—kings gaining special “office charisma,”5and eventually godly charisma backed by an emerging organized priesthood (deriving from the tribal shaman).6

Trade-Capitalism Emerges in the Independent City-States Karl Polanyi,7 describes the emergence of trade-capitalism in his book Trade and Markets in Early Empires. From ancient Sumer to the Babylonian city-states, to Phoenicia, trade-capitalism developed rapidly. Caravan trade, river trade and sea trade, engendered a defined set of economic institutions that helped regulate and stimulate trade, craft production, and cash crop production. A new class of “merchants,” or businessmen, arose. They organized trading expeditions on sea and on land, they developed money and banking processes, and they encouraged craft and cash crop production for the overseas an overland market. The merchants began with barter, but then developed money as a means of exchange and a commodity in itself. Bars of metal—gold, silver, copper, and amalgams—were carefully weighed, determined for purification, and used for trade. These metal bars were also kept by bankers, and used for interest-bearing loans, as well as for exchange of goods. Hence, banking emerged with trade, craft and cash crop production. The merchants and bankers gained money wealth, a new source of wealth, which would give them a new source of power. Heretofore, power was a military phenomenon, and prestige a factor of age. But, with the emergence of trade-capitalism, money wealth would become an alternative source of political power, and social status.

4

Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society, NY. Amazon, 2012 (1877). Max Weber, Economy and Society “Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich”, New York, Academic Press, 1961. 6 Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, New York, Amazon, 2011. 7 Karl Polanyi, Trade and Markets in the Early Empires, New York, Free Press, 1952. 5

18

2 Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny in the City-States of the Ancient World

Now, it must be made clear, that the military Kings in the Middle East, Egypt, China, and South Asia, were centralizing and dominating these regions with military power. However, in the Middle East, independent trading cities were allowed to retain their autonomy in return for a percentage of the fabulous craft and cash crop production they generated. So, let us look at the political structure that emerged in these independent citystates, for it was quite different from the kingly-theocratic and kingly-bureaucratic states that came to dominate much of the world.

Rich Merchant Oligarchs In Mari, Ebla, Tyre, Sidon, Carthage, and other independent city-states, the tribal council of elders—spoken to by Gilgamesh—became the council of “city-fathers.” These city-fathers were actually wealthy merchants who organized the trade, the craft production, and the cash crop production of the city-state in question. These wealthy merchants, not only organized the trade and production, but they also oversaw the city-states’ banking and money lending process. The money and banking were engaged in using standardized metal bars, as mentioned, until much later on, when coins were developed by the Lydians and Greeks. The city-fathers met in a council of elders but, now, not just any clan elder, but only the clan elders from the wealthiest merchant families. So, the Council of Elders became the Council of city fathers which was actually an oligarchic council. It was the Council of rich merchants and bankers, with designated wealth qualifications for office. Aristotle8 would categorize the Phoenician council of city elders as an oligarchy in which the rich predominated. But, both the economy and the polity depended on the craftsman and cash crop farmers, in the surrounding area, to produce the trade goods, and, to defend the city in times of war. So, the craftsman and farmers formed a warriors assembly, which became a “citizens” assembly. According to Aristotle,9 the craftsman and farmers of the citizens assemblies of the Phoenician city-states had power to veto the decisions of the Council of city fathers. In this sense, Aristotle asserted, a democratic element was added to the oligarchic. Further, in these pre-Greek city-states, the war chief of tribes had become the citystates “King.” The King led the army in war, and organized the army in peace time. The King became more than just a war chief. Kings lived in city palaces, dressed in magnificent clothing, and had prestige beyond the ordinary. In the city-states, they were not considered divine, but definitely beyond the ordinary. They sat on thrones,

8 9

Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. Ibid.

Oligarchy Predominates in the Pre-Greek City-States

19

their wives and mothers shared their office charisma, and extreme prestige, they called the law courts to session and presided over capital law cases. Still, they were not divine Kings. In fact, the merchant oligarchic council made most of the decisions in society, and, could override the King, even in decisions about war. One last institution carried over from tribal society must be mentioned. That is, the Shaman—male and female—who existed in most tribal societies as both healers, mystics and visionaries—were carried over into the trade—capitalist city-states as an organized priesthood—male and female. This priesthood, in the pre-Greek city-states was very powerful. The religion they carried combined the fertility festivals of the Earth Goddess with human sacrifice ceremonies of the God of war. Festivals of life and sex, along with festivals of death and war characterized these city-states.10 The sex festivals were exciting—if we can take Herodotus’11 word and the words of the Biblical prophets12 who railed against them—whereas the human sacrifice festivals were frightening, and had the effect of controlling the population and conservatizing them toward outside trends and social changes. The city-state priesthoods in the pre-Greek city-states were very powerful. Their “sacred marriage rite” festivals, in which the high priestess impersonated the fertility goddess and the King impersonated the war God, were famous in the ancient world—and made famous in the modern world by Frazier’s Golden Bow.13 But their human sacrifice festivals—especially the throwing of babies into the “flames of Moloch,” as rejected roundly in the Jewish Bible, and condemned by Greek and Roman authors—as well as Flaubert14 in the modern world—gave them a bad reputation, and probably prevented the rise of rational-science in their midst.

Oligarchy Predominates in the Pre-Greek City-States The main point for us in this treatise is that oligarchy, rather than democracy best characterized the pre-Green city-states. Aristotle called them “mixed polities,” because they exhibited some democratic elements in terms of the citizens assembly being able to veto the decisions of the council of wealthy merchants, but he admitted that in most ways these city-states could best be characterized as oligarchies.15 This is our point: though trade capitalism is linked with the emergence of democracy in the ancient city-states, oligarchy is also exhibited, and is also linked

10

Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. Herodotus, Histories, London, Penguin, 1951. 12 Oxford Study Bible, Book of Prophets, London, 1963. 13 James George Frazer, The Golden Bough, New York, Amazon, 2011. (1890). 14 Gustave Flaubert, Salammbo, NY, Amazon 2006. 15 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation. Oxford Press. 11

20

2 Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny in the City-States of the Ancient World

with trade capitalism—and it often overrides democracy. In fact, it was not until the Greek city-states emerged that full-fledged democracy appeared. And, even in Greece, oligarchy preceded democracy, and, in many city-states, such as Corinth, oligarchy overrode democracy. When Sparta and Athens fought each other in the Peloponnesian War, the conflict between oligarchy and democracy became horrifyingly violent. The war and the violence are described in graphic detail by Thucydides.16 After the war, many citystates went fully democratic, but, many others remained oligarchic. The transition to full-fledged democracy and constitutional legal-authority in ancient Greece is complex. However, Aristotle and his students have given us a detailed guide book on this transition in Athens. The Constitution of Athens17 gives us enough detail to be able to understand this very complicated transition from tribal democracy to city state democracy in Greece.

The Ancient Greek City-States After the decline of the Mycenaean civilization (which had been influenced by the Minoan Civilization of Crete),18 and the subsequent Doric Greek invasion, ancient Greek society fell back into a “dark age”19 in which tribal institutions predominated. Significantly, Kingship declined and disappeared in most of Greece. There was a remembrance of the Mycenaean Kings, but the institution died out as society regressed to tribalism. Secondly, the organized priesthood, which was deeply institutionalized in Minoan society, disappeared in the Doric dominated tribal society of Dark Age Greece. So, there were no Kings and no priests. There were war heroes and soothsayers, but these were purely “charismatic.” That is, the individuals had this talent, but they were not officially recognized in any way. The Greek tribes, like the Norse tribes of a later era, had specially designated clans from which the leading warriors were drawn. The clans were not all equal, as in many tribal societies, such as the Iroquois,20 but rather the warrior clans were designated as “aristocratic”—“aristo”—the best, while the other clans were designated as “common”—the farmers, laborers, and craftsmen. The commoners fought as foot soldiers, while the aristocrats fought, first on chariots—as described in The Iliad—and then as horse cavalry soldiers. The aristocratic cavalry led the foot soldiers into battle and did fight heroically in many cases. 16

Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, London, Penguin Classics, 1951. Aristotle, The Constitution of Athens, London, Penguin Classics, 1964. 18 Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. 19 Dark Age Greece, Archaic Greece. 20 Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society, NY. Amazon, 2012 (1877). 17

The Heavy Armored Hoplite Phalanx Empowers the Middle and Working Class. . .

21

The Dark Age Greek tribal political organization was dominated by the aristocrats. Typically for tribes, a council of elders formed the core of the tribal polity. However, in the Greek tribes, these “wise elders” had to be drawn only from the aristocratic clans. So there was a council of wise elders, but it was essentially a council of aristocrats. These aristocrats trained only for war, and did no manual labor. As in all tribes, however, the council of elders had to present their policy decisions to a warriors assembly. All the foot soldiers—and they were well trained warriors—gathered in an assembly numerous times each year, and they voted upon the decisions of the aristocrats. The voting during the Dark Age was primitive: the warriors either shouted or stamped their feet. And, unanimity was demanded, such that decisions could be sent back to the aristocratic council of elders until a unanimous vote could be achieved.21 Not only did the aristocrats dominate the decision-making process, but they also were the judges at court trials—especially capital punishment trials. The warriors assembly had a voice in policy decisions, and they were called as witnesses at trials, but the aristocrats tended to dominate both the assembly and the courts. Then, two major alterations occurred that changed Greek society: one, the adoption of the heavy armored “hoplite” phalanx military formation; and two, the rise of a trade-capitalist economy of spectacular economic success.

The Heavy Armored Hoplite Phalanx Empowers the Middle and Working Class and Their Warriors Assembly In the book, Demokratia,22 edited by Josiah Ober, the adoption of the “hoplite” phalanx is emphasized by Hansen23 as empowering the commoners and pushing aside the horse riding aristocrats. This military formation was developed by Greek mercenaries hired to fight the massive Assyrian Army. Faced with a huge chariot force and a well-organized cavalry, the Greek foot soldiers closed ranks, locked shields (hoplons), stood at least ten deep and pushed out long pointed spears that horses and chariots could not penetrate. With their heavy armor and massed phalanx strength, the Greek mercenaries had some success in holding back the Assyrian chariots and cavalry.

21

Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. Joshua Ober, Demokratia (Hoplite Phalanx), Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1984. 23 Ibid. 22

22

2 Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny in the City-States of the Ancient World

These mercenaries brought back this formation to Argos and Corinth. And, when the soldiers of Argos defeated the Spartans, the Spartans adopted and perfected this new military formation.24 The Greek aristocrats were forced to dismount and to join into the front ranks of the phalanx. Over time, they lost their prestige, because a strong farmer could be as effective as an average aristocrat. The warriors assembly, then, was gaining in power (over against) the council of aristocratic elders.

The Spectacular Rise of Greek Trade-Capitalism and the Emergence of Economic Classes In Hesiod’s Works and Days,25 he encourages the Greeks to raise cash crops, such as olive oil, wine, and grain, and to put them on carts and bring them to the ships for overseas trade. So, too, with craft goods, such as weaponry, statuary, and fancy clothing. The Greeks learned overseas trading from the Phoenicians—they literally learned how to pack a ship properly so that it would not list, and how to present their goods to foreigners for trade, and how to make maps and assess the character of the people with whom they were going to trade. The Greeks had olive oil and wine, which were highly sought after, and, their statuary and artwork were coveted by other societies. The Greeks took to trade—capitalism, and eventually became the major competitors to the Phoenicians—the Phoenicians dominated the African coast, while the Greeks, dominated the European Coast, in terms of trade and colonies in the Mediterranean region. Tribal society was left behind, except at Sparta, and trade capitalist city-states, became the typical form of Greek society.

Class Distinctions Based on Wealth In Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens,26 Solon takes center stage for establishing a new Constitution for Athens, no longer based on the aristocrat-commoner class distinction of tribal society, but on the wealth distinctions of trade-capitalist society.

24

Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. Hesiod, Works and Days, NY, Amazon, 2008. 26 Aristotle, The Constitution of Athens, London, Penguin Classics, 1964. 25

The Emergence of Rational-Legal Authority: The Rise of Science and Secular Law

23

The council of elders was made up only of those elders who came from families with a great amount of wealth, while all classes could attend the warriors assembly— which was now called the “citizens” assembly. Since the middle and working classes did not like the oligarchic character of the council of elders, Solon gave them something to placate them: the law courts were open to all citizens—no longer dominated by aristocratic judges or wealthy oligarchic judges. A jury of a hundred or so citizens, chosen by lot, would judge all cases, even capital cases. The latter did empower the less wealthy classes, but they still wanted access to the council of elders. This, however, would be a long time coming, and it would usher in an era of conflict between the rich and the less wealthy citizens. It would take many years, and much bloodshed before the middling27 and working class citizens gained access to the all-important council that generated most policy positions. The class warfare between the rich and the lesser classes would be horribly exacerbated by the Spartan-Athens War, for Sparta backed the oligarchs and Athens backed the Democrats. The city-states of Greece went through a terrible period of violent Civil War—the Democrats murdering or exiling the oligarchs, the oligarchics murdering and exiling the leaders of the Democrats, and Sparta and Athens invading and intervening and making the violence and vendettas worse. With the end of this long, violent war,28 the Greek city-states stabilized, some like Croton and Athens and Samos, becoming fully democratic—meaning full access to the Council and the assembly for all citizens of that polis—while others remained oligarchic, like Corinth and Miletos, meaning that the council had a wealth qualification and the law courts were also dominated by oligarchic Judges. Oligarchy of the rich continued to be exhibited in many Greek city-states. However, the Democratic ethos would be reinforced by another remarkable Greek social phenomenon. That is, the rational-scientific worldview emerged with the decline of Greek Olympian religion and it would reinforce and extend the Democratic ethos by encouraging the emergence of secular—rational law.

The Emergence of Rational-Legal Authority: The Rise of Science and Secular Law Something new and different occurred in ancient Greece between 600 and 400 B.C.E. It occurred first in Miletos on the Asia minor coast and then spread to other Greek city-states. It was the rise of the rational—scientific worldview, and Thales of Miletos is credited with initiating this way of viewing the world.

27 28

Joshua Ober, Demokratia (Hoplite Phalanx), Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1984. Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, London, Penguin Classics 1951.

24

2 Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny in the City-States of the Ancient World

Thales and other Greek intellectuals had traveled to the great civilizations of Egypt, Babylon, Lydia and Phoenicia. There they had learned Egyptian geometry, Babylonian astronomy, and advanced religious notions, such as the ideas of a moral God and a soul that lived on after death. Thales, Xenophanes,29 Pythagoras, and other intellectuals rejected the primitive Greek tribal religion of anthropomorphic gods and goddesses—as exhibited in the Iliad of Homer30 and the Theogony of Hesiod.31 Xenophanes32 called the gods and goddesses of the Iliad immoral, representing all the foibles of humans, and certainly not models for humans to emulate. In Durkheimian terms,33 the educated Greeks experienced “anomie,” or a loss of norms and values, leaving them in a moral vacuum. In Jean Paul Sartre’s34 terms, the Greek intellectuals experienced “existential anxiety,” a condition in which life in the universe has no meaning. Given the anomic vacuum and the existential anxiety, the Greek intellectuals attempted to rationally understand the universe, the material world, and then the social world in which humans lived. From Thales to Pythagoras to Democritus, the Greek intellectuals began to observe the universe in a scientific way, and to theorize on its basic composition. What is the basic substance out of which all other substances are made? Is it water, air, earth, fire, or some other substance? Leucippus and Democritus believed that all things were made of small uncuttable substances called “atoms” in Greek. Pythagoras showed that the movement of the planets could be predicted through mathematical calculations, extending the geometry he had learned in Egypt to the astronomy brought back from Babylon. A new worldview emerged: the rational—scientific worldview in which observations and mathematization were supplemented by experimentation to understand the material world; and in which hypotheses and theories could be challenged, disproven, or proven, such that knowledge of the material world could be built up and increased, and improved upon. At the same time, with the scientific worldview partially filling the anomic vacuum, “mystery cults,” focusing on life and death and a higher morality also emerged. From Xenophanes to Plato, the idea of a moral God representing the “good,” and the idea of a transcendent soul living on after death, accompanied the scientific worldview—Plato taught mathematics and the soul, as did his predecessor, Pythagoras.

29

Homer, The Iliad, Amazon, 2007. Hesiod, Theogony, London, Penguin, 1951. 31 John Burnet, in Early Greek Philosophy (Xenophanes), Google Books, 2000. 32 Emile Durkheim, Suicide, NY Free Press, 1950. 33 Jean Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, NY, Amazon 2012. 34 Max Weber, Economy and Society, Translated by Claus Wittich and Guenther Roth, N.Y. Bedminster Press, 1971. 30

The Emergence of Rational-Legal Authority: The Rise of Science and Secular Law

25

The vast majority of the Greeks—farmers, craftsman, laborers—men and women with little education—still believed fervently in the Olympian gods and goddesses. Temples were built in all the city-states dedicated to these gods and goddesses. However, as more of the people acquired an education from the growing number of “sophists” plying their “trade” in the Greek cities, more and more people— especially the growing middle classes in the trade-capitalist economy—began to become familiar with mathematics, science, and the mystery cults. Both the rationalscientific worldview, and the moral-mystical religion were absorbed side-by-side (as they would be centuries later in Reformation Northern Europe). We are emphasizing the rational-scientific worldview, because in ancient Greece, and then again in Enlightenment Europe the rational-scientific worldview would reinforce what Weber called “rational-legal authority.”35 Authority based, not on a “traditional”36 King, but on rational law. As Aristotle put it, “When the law rules, God and reason rule. When a man rules, we add the character of the beast.”37 In the ancient Greek city-states, legal-rational authority, in the form of written “constitutions,” was joined with the, democracy or oligarchy, of the city-states. These constitutions of written laws were essentially secular. So, where did this secular law originate from? We argue that this secular law derived from the contract law that was linked with trade-capitalism. Now, contract law predates the Greek city-states by thousands of years. It emerged in Sumer and then Babylon, and continued to undergird all trade and banking transactions linked with the trade-capitalist economies of the independent trading cities. However, in the Middle Eastern Empires the authority of the Kings superseded all other authority and within the pre-Greek city-states of the Middle East and Phoenicia, religious authority superseded even the authority of the city Kings. Science, mathematics, and rational perception of the world were inhibited. Contract law was followed and took precedent in the law courts, but it was limited to the sphere of economic transactions. In the Greek city-states, lacking traditional authority—no kings, no priests— contract law was extended into the political sphere: “constitutions” of secular law were invested with political authority, and their provisions were openly and rationally debated, amended, and enhanced—“when the law rules, God and reason rule.”38

35

Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation. Oxford Press. Ibid. 37 Stephen G. Miller, Ancient Greek Athletics, Google Books, 2001. 38 Polybins, Book VI, The History of Rome, NY, Amazon 2006. 36

26

2 Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny in the City-States of the Ancient World

Education and the New “Aristocratic” Elite As the scientific worldview spread, and as democracy spread, so did education. The Sophists emerged in many city-states teaching mathematics, science, philosophy, and rhetoric. Mathematics, science and philosophy were taught by the secular teachers—not by priests, while rhetoric was taught because debating, at the Democratic assemblies of citizens, had become important—and becoming a great orator and debater could gain one immense prestige among the citizens. Why do we discuss this? Because the trade-capitalist economy had generated a new class of rich—who wanted to gain prestige—the kind of prestige the old military aristocrats once held. The way to gain prestige in the Democratic cities was to become a leading oratorrhetor—debater—at the citizens assembly. To gain this skill, one had to first learn science and mathematics, and then “logic.” Once these were learned, one had to learn to use this knowledge to argue convincingly at the assembly. The working class had no time for such learning—they worked all day at their farms or craft workshops. But, the sons of rich merchants, workshop owners, cash crop state owners had the time. They—the sons of the rich—studied with sophists, learned science and logic, and practiced debating—taking each side of an issue and arguing persuasively for it. In this way, the sons of the rich gained inordinate influence in the otherwise Democratic assembly and law courts. Witnessing this process, the sons of the old aristocratic families attempted to gain wealth in the trade-capitalist economy. They often succeeded as they held the best agricultural land for cash crops. And, they also became accomplished sea captains. Thus, gaining wealth, the sons of the old aristocrats joined the sons of the new capitalist rich, and also became excellent debaters. Since the old rich had been a warrior aristocracy, they regularly attended the gymnasium for physical education—developing both strength and beauty in their naked bodies—remember that the Olympic games exhibited naked competition.39 The sons of the rich emulated the sons of the old aristocracy in attending the gymnasium as well as the schools of the sophists. Eventually, a kind of educational aristocracy emerged—beautiful and eloquent—sound in mind in a body. We focus on this because in the city-states of the late Golden Age and Hellenistic Age, this fused class of rich and aristocratic individuals sometimes formed into an oligarchy, ruling with wealth qualifications for office holding and dominating the still existent citizens assembly. And further, intellectuals from this class, such as Polybius of Megalopolis, advocated for a “mixed polity” in which they—the well-educated, wealthy class, had the major role and the democratic citizens assembly a minor role.

39

Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017.

Education and the New “Aristocratic” Elite

27

Polybius40 called democracy “ochlocracy,” or “mob rule,” where the uneducated working classes responded emotionally to manipulative demagogues, who swayed them into wild and stupid and destructive policy decisions. Whereas, in his “mixed polity,” constitutionally dominated by the educated oligarchy, wise and measured and rational decisions would be made. After Polybius, who wrote during the Roman ascendancy, and who was a hostage held in Rome, Cicero reiterated this view. Cicero was well educated by Greek sophists, and a well-trained debater of the Roman Republic’s Senate. He too favored oligarchy by the educated, wealthy elite—the Senators of Rome—over democracy by the Roman Plebeians. And, again, in nineteenth century Europe, in England and Germany, the upper classes put themselves forward as an educated elite better able to rule than the uneducated, emotionally unstable “masses.” We shall discuss this later. Here we wish to conclude our observations on ancient Greece to say that while full-fledged democracy did emerge, with majority voting and constitutional, rational-legal authority, so, too, did oligarchy continue with the capitalist rich enunciating an ideology of superiority over the common man. Of course, neither women nor slaves nor resident foreigners ever got the vote or political rights. I have discussed this elsewhere, in my two volume work, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States.41 In that work I have extensive material on women and their role in Iroquois tribal democracy, and, in the ancient Greek city-states—look, for instance, at Aristophanes play, The Assembly Women,42 and the role of the women in the matrilineal clans of the Iroquois.

40

Aristophanes, The Assemblywomen, London, Penguin Classics, 1968. Ronald Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation States, Springer, 2017. 42 Aristophanes, The Assemblywomen, London: Penguin Classics, 1968. 41

Chapter 3

Renaissance Italian City-States: The Triumph of Oligarchy and Tyranny

The Arabic Golden Age Precedes the Italian Renaissance Many scholars believe that the Italian Renaissance never would have occurred without the Arabic Golden Age that preceded it. They are probably correct, for without Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Averroes (Ibn Rushd) and Moses Maimonides, St. Thomas Aquinas may never have written on Aristotle or urged for the translation into Latin of all the Greek classics. Avicenna, the Persian scholar, read Aristotle from the translations housed in the Baghdad Library—“The House of Wisdom.” He read the Greek mathematicians, and while traveling in Eastern Persia (where he was from) incorporated Indian numerals into his work. These numerals replaced the Greco-Roman numerals and emerged into the world of mathematical scholarship as “Arabic numerals”—a major improvement.1 Avicenna also read the medical books of Galen, whose book on anatomy had been the standard in ancient Greece—Avicenna improved upon this also, and Arabic speaking doctors became the best in the world. But, though Avicenna was familiar with Aristotle’s politics, he did not make any contribution in this field, for his life depended upon accepting the authority of the Moslem caliphate. Averroes wrote line by line commentaries on the works of Aristotle, explaining Aristotle to the Arabic speaking world, and to the Latin speaking Christian Spaniards of the Iberian Peninsula where he lived.2 Thomas Aquinas3 called him “the commentator,” and without his work, he confessed that he would not have understood Aristotle.

1

Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Philosophy in the Arabic Golden Age, NY, Amazon, 2013. Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Philosophy in the Arabic Golden Age, NY, Amazon, 2013. 3 Thomas Aquinas, Politics and Ethics, London, Penguin Classics, 1950. 2

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_3

29

30

3 Renaissance Italian City-States: The Triumph of Oligarchy and Tyranny

Averroes read some of Plato’s work as well, and came out in favor of women’s liberation—which Plato championed in The Republic.4 Yet, Averroes also made no major contribution to political theory. He went line by line with Aristotle, but as the Iberian caliphate closed in on him, he dared not denigrate the Moslem monarchy in any way. Finally, Moses Maimonides,5 a Spanish Jew, who read Aristotle, Galen, and the Greek mathematicians in Arabic translation, and had to run for his life from the Moslem fundamentalists in Spain, then to Morocco, and took up residence in Cairo Egypt. There, he became the doctor to the Moslem Caliph, in Cairo, taught mathematics and anatomy and studied Aristotle’s Logic. In his Guide for the Perplexed,6 Maimonides told his students that a religious Jew could combine the study of Greek scientific classics with the study of the Torah and Talmud. The Orthodox rabbis were not so sure about this, but when Maimonides reorganized the Talmudic commentaries on the Torah (Bible), and made them more accessible to study, the rabbis made him famous with their praise.7 But, Maimonides also, like his Moslem predecessors, would not dare to criticize the caliphate monarchy and did not comment in any important way on Aristotle’s politics. Democracy and oligarchy were not analyzed—politics was a non-topic— the caliph in Cairo was protecting Maimonides and the Jewish community in Egypt and in Jerusalem.

The Italian Renaissance The Christian Crusades against the Moslems created the need for port cities in Northern Italy. The Christian armies of Europe marched to Italy and then were transported to Constantinople by ship, and then on to the Holy Land to fight for Jerusalem. Venice and Genoa began as port cities during this era. When the Crusades ended, the Italian sea captains brought back plundered luxury craft goods from the Middle East that dazzled the Italians. Desiring these goods, the Italians developed a high level trade-capitalist economy, manufacturing their own craft-goods and cash crops to trade for the luxuries of the Middle East. As Venice and Genoa became wealthy on this trade and craft economy, other coastal cities emerged to compete with them. Dozens of independent trading citystates expanded and became prosperous in Northern Italy. These city-states—Venice, Genoa, Florence, and many others—were dominated by an oligarchic government made up of rich merchants and bankers. No Italian

4

Plato, The Republic, London, Penguin Classes, 1950. Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, NY, Amazon, 2014. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., see also The Mishna Torah. 5

Oligarchy and Tyranny Triumph

31

kings existed to challenge their authority or to unify Italy. Germanic kings did unify the Northern European territories, but these were rural-agricultural and “feudal.” Kings and military aristocrats dominated peasant-farmers—no cities existed yet. If there were no Italian kings, there certainly was an organized priesthood. The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy was organized, institutionalized, and powerful. The Roman Catholic Church not only unified Italy, at least in the theocratic sphere, but it unified all of Europe. Even the Germanic kings yielded to church authority. Within each Italian city-state, the wealthy merchants and bankers became so successful, that they began to gain control over the College of Cardinals and the choice for the Pope. So, this trade-capitalist-based oligarchy was even gaining control over the church itself.

Oligarchy and Tyranny Triumph Since craft goods were essential in the trade-capitalist economy, craft industries were encouraged in all the city-states. The Italians excelled at craft production—they produce spectacular metal goods, glassware, pottery, clothing, leather goods, and more. Wine and olive oil were also valued commodities. The craftsman eventually organized themselves and began to demand political participation and a greater percentage of the wealth they generated. However, unlike in the Greek city-states, the Italian craftsman did not make up a formidable citizen’s militia. No hoplite phalanx existed for the Italian craftsman and farmers—they were not trained militarily. Instead, the very wealthy trade-capitalist oligarchs hired mercenary soldiers to defend their city-states and to attack other city-states. At first they hired Italian mercenaries. But when they proved to be unreliable—often changing sides for a higher price or because the battle was going badly—they hired Swiss mercenaries, who tended to fight for the city that hired them. Critically for us in this treatise, the Italian craftsman and farmers—aware of Democracy from the Greek translations—failed in their attempt to share power with the oligarchic rich.8 In Florence, ironically, at the time Machiavelli,9 was Foreign Minister, copied Athens, set up a full-fledged Democracy, exiled the oligarchs (The Medici Family), and attempted—under Machiavelli’s direction—to establish and train a citizen’s militia. The attempt at Democracy failed. The mercenaries paid by the Medicis defeated the Florentine militia, Machiavelli was tortured and then released, and oligarchy, under the control of the Medici family, returned. In Venice and Genoa, the democracy movement of the craftsman and farmers was violently repressed using mercenaries. In most of the Italian city-states, democracy

8 9

Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince and The Discourses, London, Penguin Classics, 1950.

32

3 Renaissance Italian City-States: The Triumph of Oligarchy and Tyranny

failed and oligarchy triumphed. Craft production, artistic creation—in both art and music—were spectacular. Sculpture, painting with “perspective,” symphonic instruments and music, and guns and cannons poured forth from the Italian trade-capitalist economy. (Gunpowder, paper, and pasta had been brought from China by Marco Polo.) And though democracy failed, Machiavelli kept political theory alive by writing The Discourses,10 in which a “mixed polity” was advocated based on the work of Titus Livias11 (which Machiavelli discovered from other scholars based on the work of Polybins).12 Further, during the period of relative anarchy, when the craftsmen were revolting against the merchants and bankers, and, when every city-state seemed to be at war with every other, tyranny—dictatorship—exhibiting murderous and treacherous violence—emerged in many of the Italian city-states. Of course, Machiavelli in The Prince13 describes this in gory detail, and, praises it! Plato14 had vilified tyranny as the worst form of government—even worse than traditional kingship. But Machiavelli glows with enthusiasm over every act of violence and treachery engaged in by his favorite tyrants. In fairness to the European intellectuals and priests, they considered The Prince to have been inspired by the devil, and believed that Machiavelli had lost his sense of morality in his attempt to regain his political position and join the Medicis in ruling Florence. The tyrannies of Renaissance Italy will be described in our section on tyranny. The main point we wish to emphasize here, in our analysis of the Italian Renaissance city-states, is that oligarchy—rule by the rich—predominated in these city-states, and trade-capitalism—though it generated a democracy movement— sustained the oligarchies, not the democracies. As we shall show, the balance between oligarchy and democracy in the modern world of advanced global capitalism, is delicate. And, oligarchic control of the rich has expanded over against the Democratic processes linked with the modern middle classes and the unionized working class.

10

Ibid. Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Books I–V, London, Penguin Classics, 1948. 12 Polybins, Book VI, The History of Rome, NY, Amazon 2006. 13 Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, London, Penguin Classics, 1950. 14 Plato, The Republic, London, Penguin Classes, 1950. 11

Chapter 4

Oligarchy and Democracy in the German and Dutch Trade-Capitalist and Reformation City-States

Trade capitalism moved north from Italy. The Baltic Sea cities and the River cities of Germany began to engage in trade and banking. So, too, did the myriad Dutch cities in the coastal low lands of Flanders and Holland. These cities had commodities to trade, such as salted fish (especially herring), wheels of cheese, and well-crafted metal weaponry and other metal goods. Italian bankers were invited North to tutor the German and Dutch merchants in the profession of banking. As Weber1 characterized them, these were bare market cities, compared to the opulent Italian counterparts. Nonetheless, as trade increased and as craft productions improved, these “Hansa” cities in Germany and the low countries became prosperous. As in Italy, a class of wealthy trade merchants and bankers formed into an oligarchic council, and ruled each city-state. In Germany, however, there were kings and a powerful military “feudal” aristocracy from whom the kings were drawn. Technically, the Holy Roman Emperor, elected by the aristocracy, was supposed to unify the Germanic territories. However, in actuality, the Emperor had no control over the various regional kings in Germany. All the regional kings had strong, loyal feudal armies made up of peasant foot soldiers and aristocratic horse soldiers. And, as the Turks advanced over and over again into the Balkans and up towards Vienna, these kingly feudal armies had to remain strong. A massive cavalry of mounted, armored knights was maintained in Germany. Thus, the Hansa trade-capitalist city-states, though independent politically, were surrounded by a more powerful political military force—the Kings’ and their knights.

1

Max Weber, The City, NY Free Press, 1951.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_4

33

34

4 Oligarchy and Democracy in the German and Dutch Trade-Capitalist and. . .

In the face of this challenge, the German trading cities set aside their rivalries, and formed into leagues of allied city-states.2 The reason we highlight this is that each city-state had to elect representatives to go to a central meeting place—such as Lubek—and make unified political decisions. This same phenomenon occurred among the Dutch city-states, as they were threatened by French, German, and Spanish kingly—feudal armies. Therefore, in both northwest Germany and the Netherlands, the institutionalization of a unifying, representative council linking together a large territorial region made up of independent trading cities, emerged. Since the city-states were ruled by an oligarchic council, the representatives to the regional council were necessarily rich merchants from each of the city-states. So, the representative regional council—the parliaments or states general—were oligarchic in their origins.3

Democracy Emerges in the German and Dutch Market City-States and Is Reinforced by the Reformation Just as in Italy, when craft production and cash-crop production generated a large class of craftsmen and cash crop farmers (and fishermen), these working classes demanded participation in the city-state government. At first, the rich merchants and bankers kept them out and activity repressed their movement—as in Italy. However, in the Northwest of Europe, the craftsman gained two sources of power: (1) they trained as city militias, and became a well-trained fighting force. Swiss mercenaries were hired to train them, but not in sufficient numbers to replace them, unlike in Italy;4 and (2) The Protestant Reformation reduced the support of the Catholic Church, and, critically, demanded the education of all Christians—rich and poor, male and female—so that they could read the Bible on their own. Luther’s educational push led the craftsman and cash crop farmers to gain enough of an education to feel competent to represent themselves. Yes, the rich had more education, but the working class had a sufficient education. Add to this that the craftsman made up a well-trained city militia, as in ancient Greece, and they had some power over against the rich oligarchs.5 Add a critical third factor: the craftsman in northern Europe organize themselves into “guilds.” Strong, fraternal organizations based on each trade. These guilds had uniforms and flags and held celebrations, and reinforced the military organization in each city.6 The Italians had craft organizations, too, but they were not militarized, 2

Philipe Dillinger, The Hanseatic League, Amazon Books, 2002. Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. 4 Ibid. 5 Max Weber, The City, NY Free Press, 1951. 6 Joop Boudsblom, The Dutch Republic, Oxford History of Early Europe. 3

Calvinism Legitimates the Rich as “God’s Stewards on Earth”: Oligarchy. . .

35

and without the Reformation, the Italian craftsman could not claim the same kind of legitimacy—Christian, Biblical legitimacy—that the Germanic craftsman attained.7 In the Germanic city-states, after the Reformation, each guild elected a guild master, and he joined the wealthy merchants as a permanent member of each City Council, and, as representatives at the regional parliaments.8

Calvinism Legitimates the Rich as “God’s Stewards on Earth”: Oligarchy Gains Legitimacy Germany remained staunchly Lutheran, linked to the “work ethic—hard work purifies the soul,”9 and education for all Christians, including scientific education and mathematics (against the Catholic Church’s restrictions). The Dutch city-states went over to Calvinism, which, in its vulgarized doctrine (to use Weber’s10 term), came to be understood as “Gaining wealth is a sign of God’s grace.” The rich deserve their money—they worked hard for it and God favors them as among “the elect” who will go to heaven. Calvinism, in its vulgarized doctrine—Calvin himself never said any of this, but rather revived Saint Augustine’s theology of “predestination”—one is predestined for heaven or hell and only God knows. For the Dutch Calvinists, money wealth and business success were signs of God’s grace.11 Why do we mention this? Because in the Netherlands, and then in England, where Calvinism predominated, the rich gained religious legitimization for the right to rule as an oligarchy. Since the craftsman and farmers were poorer, less well-educated, and less successful, they did not qualify to rule. Hence, democracy was not good and oligarchy was certainly better. The forces of democracy emanating from the craft guilds, and the forces of oligarchy emanating from the trade and banking sectors of the city-state economy, thus competed with each other, both in the city-states and in the regional parliaments. Surrounding the independent leagues of cities, however, the kings and other armies of heavily armored mounted knights and loyal peasant foot soldiers, still existed and threatened the independence of the leagues of city-states. In central and eastern Germany they dominated the society, as the Turks threatened. In the western German city-states and the Dutch city-states (and regional parliaments) both oligarchy and democracy existed in a “mixed polity” to use Aristotle’s12 term, while the surrounding monarchies attempted to overwhelm 7

Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism, NY, Random House, 1953. Max Weber, The City, NY Free Press, 1951. 9 Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism, NY, Random House, 1953. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation. Oxford Press. 8

36

4 Oligarchy and Democracy in the German and Dutch Trade-Capitalist and. . .

them militarily and restore both traditional monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church. Before going on to discuss oligarchy, democracy and monarchy in Great Britain, an analysis of the establishment of a national parliament—States General—in the Dutch Republic is necessary. The legitimation of the study of science will also be discussed, as the Catholic Church shut down Galileo’s work and his notebooks created a sensational explosion of scientific discoveries in Reformation Northern Europe.

Chapter 5

Oligarchy and Democracy in the Dutch Republic and Great Britain: The Emergence of Representative Democracy

The Dutch Republic While the West German city-states remained under the domination of the Prussian, Bavarian, and Austrian Kings, the Dutch city-states broke free of kingly domination. The “low lands”—swampy, below sea level, and unfit for the deployment of heavily armored knights—had never been dominated by a strong kingly state. Left to their own devices, the farmers of the low lands carried over their tribal democracy into their election of “water boards,” mandated to maintain and improve the system of dikes and canals that allowed the land to be farmed successfully.1 So, when dozens of trade-capitalist city-states emerged along the coast and at the river estuaries, they were not surrounded by kings and knights, but rather by a rural democracy of Dutch farmers, who elected representatives to their water boards.2 The city-states began, as usual, as oligarchies, dominated by merchants and bankers. And, as in Italy, the cities were competitive with one another. However, before this competition could lead to warfare and create chaos in the low lands, the threat of invasion and domination from the French and Spanish monarchies and the Roman Catholic Church forced the Dutch city-states to give up their competition and unite or face domination from these foreign kings and the Pope. French and Spanish invasions and the forced conversion of Calvinist Protestants to Roman Catholicism panicked the Dutch cities into a military and political alliance.3 The militias of each city-state joined together to fight, and, they elected representatives to a Dutch national parliament. The representatives to the “States General” were rich merchants and bankers from each city-state—so, the States General had an 1

Wilbert Van Vree, Meetings, Manners, and Civilization, Amazon, 2012. Ibid. 3 Joop Boudsblom, The Dutch Republic, Oxford History of Early Europe. 2

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_5

37

38

5 Oligarchy and Democracy in the Dutch Republic and Great Britain: The. . .

oligarchic character. However, the Guild Masters from each city-state were also elected from each city-state—thus, a democratic element was added. Finally, in order to unify the disparate city malicious into a national army, the Duke of Orange was chosen to lead the combined Dutch force. The House of Orange was the closest thing the low lands had to a monarchial family. They called William of Orange, the “stadholder”—the symbol of the unity of the new Dutch state. But, William of Orange was not a king at the States General, he was only the leader of the combined militias in the battlefield. The Dutch, without meaning to, invented the “limited monarchy”—a contradiction in terms because monarchy implies absolute power.4 The Dutch government would have remained a limited monarchy, except that William was assassinated by a fanatical Catholic. The Dutch government remained a kingless Republic until many years later when another young man from the House of Orange was installed as the stadholder. The States General itself—the Dutch national parliament—remained oligarchically dominated until the dynamic spread of scientific learning—and its encouragement by the Protestant Reformation—engendered a growing middle-class of university educated citizens, and, a working-class with a sufficient biblical and secular education, slowly democratized the representatives in the States General. This process of democratization was slow, but persistent, and occurred over a long period of time without the kind of violence that occurred during the English “Civil War” and the French Revolution.5 The Dutch Republic, with its national parliament of oligarchic and democratic representatives, and, it’s limited monarchy would become the eventual model for the British. Take note that the first limited monarch of Britain, invested in 1689, was actually a Dutch prince from the House of Orange, who married Mary, heir to the British throne. William and Mary ruled together, but as limited monarchs with the British Parliament dominant (as in the Netherlands). Unlike the Netherlands, however, the British Parliament exhibited purely oligarchic control from 1689 to 1853 and beyond. Let us look at Great Britain.

Oligarchy, Democracy, and Monarchy in Great Britain Unlike the low countries, England, Wales, and Scotland, had been unified by a powerful, centralized monarchy. This unification had taken centuries, but it had finally occurred. Therefore, when the trade-capitalist cities of Great Britain emerged—similar in structure to those of the Netherlands—they came under the authority of the monarchy.

4 5

Ibid. Wilbert Van Vree, Meetings, Manners, and Civilization, Amazon, 2012.

Puritanism Against the Church of England; Democracy Against Oligarchy and. . .

39

The city governments of the British trading cities were dominated by the merchants and bankers of these cities, as they were in the German Hanseatic League cities and the Dutch cities. Again, as in the German and Dutch cities, craftsmen began to elect representatives to these city governments. Two processes occurred in Great Britain that were different from their Germanic counterparts, and that would alter the political institutions in Britain: (1) the merchants and bankers of the British trading cities discovered that they could make more money by developing the woolens industry then by expanding their aircraft production. For, the English climate and countryside was excellent for sheep farming and British woolen clothing—for men and women—was their most successful export item.6 Therefore, British trade-capitalist investment left the cities and grew huge in the countryside. But this process, called the “enclosure movement” (described famously by Tawney)7 had the effect of expelling the peasantry, buying out the knightly aristocracy, and shifting the capitalist economy to the countryside. There, in the countryside, a new class of trade-capitalist merchants emerged: the “gentry.” The British gentry were businessmen and bankers, but they lived in countryside estates focused on sheep farming and the production of woolen clothing. This new gentry class, as we shall describe, became Protestant, hated the Roman Catholic Church, and fostered science and Greek and Roman classical education at Oxford, Cambridge, and the Scottish universities; (2) When a national parliament was called by the monarchy—in an attempt to gain money and luxury goods, this Parliament was, not only made up of city merchants and bankers, but also of countryside gentry. Over time, because of the centrality of the woolens industry, the gentry came to dominate the British Parliament. They were wealthy, well educated, and had learned the art of rhetoric. They were also oligarchic in their representation, the craftsman and farmers of the city and countryside barely gaining any glimmer of democratic representation. But, the combination of a fanatical, Puritan Protestant movement, with a genuine democratic political movement, would give the craftsman and free farmers (yeomen) ideological support against the oligarchic pretentions of the gentry, and the feudal ideas of the monarchy.

Puritanism Against the Church of England; Democracy Against Oligarchy and Monarchy England had gone Protestant because Henry VIII had wanted to divorce his wife and go to war with Spain. But, the Church of England that emerged retained a church hierarchy, was dominated by the aristocracy and rich gentry, and did not include the 6 7

R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, London, Penguin Classics, 1955. Ibid.

40

5 Oligarchy and Democracy in the Dutch Republic and Great Britain: The. . .

radical elements of Luther about universal education and the choosing of ministers by the local parishes. Feeling excluded from the aristocratic Church of England, and believing that true Protestant ideology was not being preached, the craftsman, farmers and lesser gentry turned to a more pure version of Protestantism. Puritanism spread like wildfire, among the lower classes in Great Britain. Fanatical ministers and preachers led congregations that militated for education, a Christianity free of all Catholic institutions, and, political representation in Parliament. We will not attempt to analyze the “English Civil War,” except to say that even its name is wrong—it was, after all, a revolution—and its hero, Oliver Cromwell,8 leader of the craftsman and farmers’ New Model Army, fighting for democratic representation in parliament—is more vilified, then idolized.9 What we wish to emphasize here is that Oliver Cromwell led a democratic revolution, that instituted democratic representation in Parliament—alongside the continuing oligarchic representatives—and overthrew the monarchy—King Charles, given the choice to become a limited monarch or die, chose death.10 While Cromwell was alive and his army intact, democracy coexisted with oligarchy in the British Parliament. He did act as a military dictator when democracy was threatened, and he was hideous to the staunchly Catholic Irish, but while he lived, democracy lived in Britain. When he died in the Army was disbanded, and oligarchy returned. Fearing another democratic revolt, the gentry-oligarchs—under Dutch influence—brought in from the Netherlands a limited Monarch. From 1689 until 1853, the British Parliament remained oligarchic, and of the monarchy—though constitutionally limited—took on the trappings of an absolute monarchy in style and splendor, creating the manufactured charismatic11 image of grandeur that generated a slavish obedience in the craft and former lower classes— that is, those who remained in Britain. For, a massive, steady emigration of craftsmen and farmers to the North of the United States occurred during this period of time. And, unfortunately, perhaps for the USA, many of the feudal aristocracy of Britain emigrated as well, to the Americas South.

8

Christopher Hill, God’s Englishman: Oliver Cromwell, Google Books, 2001. Eduard Bernstein, Cromwell and Communism, Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution, 1885. 10 Christopher Hill, God’s Englishman: Oliver Cromwell, Google Books, 2001. 11 Ronald M. Glassman and William Swatos, Jr., Charisma, History and Social Structure, NY Praeger, 1981. 9

Science, Law, and the Limitation of Power: British Political Theory

41

Oligarchy and Grandiose (Yet Limited) Monarchy Characterized Great Britain into the Twentieth Century People wondered why Karl Marx, living in England and given the right of free speech and free literary expression, was so negative towards England’s polity and economy. One must realize that when Marx was living in London, Great Britain was not a democracy, it was a legally mandated oligarchy—only the rich could sit in Parliament and vote for parliament. And, the “Chartist Movement,”12 of the non-rich British was failing to gain them the vote. Further, the industrial-capitalist economy that was rapidly emerging in Great Britain during the 1840s to the 1870s was generating a Dickens-described factory working class far more wretched then artisans or farmers had ever been. Marx and Engels in The Condition of the Working Class in Manchester,13 describes what Dickens14 described, The wretched of the earth—Les Miserables.15 For us, in this treatise, we wish to emphasize that oligarchy—ruled by the rich— emerges from a capitalist economy, along with democracy. And, even when democracy is fully established, the influence of the capitalist rich in the political process is problematical. We will make this explicit when we discussed the modern world. We will also present programs designed to inhibit this oligarchic over influence in modern democracy. We need to highlight one last phenomenon in Great Britain, because it leads to a very positive outcome for modern democracy. That is the expansion of science and the institutionalization of constitutional law. For, government by law, and, the rational-scientific worldview combined to create “rational-legal authority,” which, along with the limitation of power, forms a solid foundation for the modern liberalDemocratic state.

Science, Law, and the Limitation of Power: British Political Theory The gentry, a commercial class based in the English countryside and linked with the woolens industry, essentially took control of the British Parliament, from 1688 to 1853 and well beyond into the early twentieth century. This gentry class sought to differentiate themselves from the English Knights, who were known for their violence, bad manners, crudeness, and lack of education. In contradistinction to the Knights, the woolens merchants made themselves into a

12

Britannica, The Chartist Movement, Google Encyclopedia Britannica History. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, International Publishers, 1949. 14 Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, NY Amazon, 2009; A Christmas Carol, London, Penguin, 1948. 15 Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, NY, Amazon, 2012. 13

42

5 Oligarchy and Democracy in the Dutch Republic and Great Britain: The. . .

class of “gentlemen”—polite, well mannered, lawful in their relationships, and well educated. These “gentlemen” sent their sons to the British universities, where they studied science, mathematics, logic, medicine, and, along with the revival of the Greek and Roman classics, rhetoric, or the art of debate. The gentry made themselves over as an educational aristocracy—an aristocracy fluent in Greek, Latin and Hebrew; an aristocracy steeped in Greek philosophy and political theory;16 an aristocracy which excelled at debating—just as the ancient Greeks had. And just as the ancient Greek rich had used their education and debating skills to gain power at the Democratic assemblies, the gentry used their superior education and debating skills to justify legally mandated oligarchy and repress democracy. So successful were they in this endeavor, that they did inhibit democracy for centuries. Even today, the conservative party—The Tories—win elections more often than the Labour Party, the middle classes identifying more with the educated, flowery speaking gentry than with the less educated, “limey” speaking working class. If the gentry inhibited democracy in Great Britain they did put forth certain processes that would eventually help stabilize the democracy when it eventually emerged. That is, the gentry fostered the study of rational science in all fields; they enshrined “government by law”—constitutional law—though no actual comprehensive Constitution was written down as one document; and they established the limitation of power as a basic principle accompanying all government institutions. Further, as a part of the limitation of the powers of government, the rights of the individual against the state were heralded as paramount. From Hobbes17 to Locke18 to J.S. Mill,19 the theory of the rights of the individual against the state and the limitations of the power of the state were made central. This is critical for us here in this treatise. For, modern “liberal democracy” represents a fusion of the Greek conception of democracy—all the people have the right to vote—with the Enlightenment theory of the limitation a power20 and a “Bill of Rights” for the people.21 From gentry-dominated Britain, then, we get oligarchy rather than democracy. But we get the rational-scientific worldview reinforcing secular contract law, and facilitating rational-legal authority. And, with the threat of a revived absolute monarchy hanging over the gentry in the early years—1650 to 1800 or so—the institutionalization of the limitation of the power of the king, and the limitation on the power of all government institutions, also became deeply ingrained(??).

16

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, London, Penguin Classics, 1946. John Locke, On Civil Government, London, Penguin Classics, 1951. 18 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, London, Penguin Classics, 1950. 19 Baron de Montesquien, The Spirit of the Laws, London, Penguin Classics, 1946. 20 The United States of America Bill of Rights, Library of Congress Edition. 21 U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights. 17

Science, Law, and the Limitation of Power: British Political Theory

43

Yet, it must be made clear that with all the power limitations made explicit and with human rights made superior to the rights of the State, and with government by law enshrined, oligarchy of the rich dominated Great Britain, and, full-fledged democracy was slow and emerging. We must remember this as we attempt to analyze the modern democracies which are undergirded with advanced, or high-technology, global capitalism. Is oligarchy of the new capitalist rich a threat to democracy? And, if so, how does such oligarchic control function? And, again, how can oligarchic control be prevented, so that democracy can better function for all the people?

Chapter 6

The Structure of High Technology Global Capitalism

Global Capitalism: Multinational Production and Transnational Coordination Modern capitalist corporations are multinational in that the products made are invented, designed, and assembled in many different countries. Because of this the corporate headquarters are transnational, with offices around the world. Thomas Friedman, in a recent book, with the catchy title The World is Flat,1 emphasizes the interconnectedness of the world capitalist enterprises. Products, which used to be manufactured in one country, now contain parts made in many countries. An example of this is a bicycle which I own: it is sold by an American company—Trek—however, the carbon fiber frame, invented and perfected by American industrial design technocrats, is actually manufactured in Taiwan; the gears and drive train and pedals, are designed, perfected and manufactured in Japan; the wheels are made in France; the tires are made in Germany; the seat and seat post are made in Italy and the handlebars are also Italian made. So, though this bicycle is sold as American, it is actually a multinational product. So too is an Apple iPhone or iPad, and so many other products made and sold in the contemporary world. Corporate capitalist production is truly a global phenomenon. Scientific, technocratic, and engineering advances in product design, new product invention, and the production process itself occur in the advanced capitalist nations—the USA, the UK, the EU, Japan, Russia (in terms of weaponry), but the actual manufacturing of the products, or assembly of the products, occurs in the developing nations, where the labor costs are much cheaper. Thus, high-tech jobs are proliferating in the advanced capitalist nations, while lesser skilled factory jobs are expanding in the developing nations—especially 1

Thomas Friedman, The Earth is Flat, NY Amazon, 2012.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_6

45

46

6 The Structure of High Technology Global Capitalism

China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Mexico, Brazil, and more. The high-tech modern corporations are in the advanced capitalist countries, and the “outsourced” jobs are in the developing countries. Nations like China and South Korea contain both, as they are rapidly becoming advanced.

Global Capitalist Enterprises are Connected by Contract Law and Patent Law The Trek Bicycle Company is an American corporation. It controls its vast network of international production through legal contracts and patent laws. All the contributing companies must live up to their prearranged contract agreements in order to receive payment. And, other bicycle companies cannot infringe on the patents that cover the carbon fiber frame. This system is universally adopted by the advanced capitalist nations, such that the international production system works remarkably well—whether it is smart phones, computers, cars, televisions or bicycles. However, developing nations, such as China, do attempt to circumvent patent laws and steel technology. This is not a new phenomenon. Japan did it before World War II, stealing ship design technology from England, automobile technology from Germany and the USA, and steel technology from the USA. The colonial USA settlers stole steam engine technology from England, and South Korea has infringed on both Japanese and American technological patents. Once a nation becomes an advanced capitalist nation, almost equal to the others, then both contract law and patent law are usually followed carefully, such that the global capitalist system functions smoothly.

Economic “Imperialism” Links Global Corporations to Raw Materials Extraction in Developing Nations Now, giant capitalist corporations not only used cheap labor—hence the outsourcing of jobs to non-union developing nations—but they also need raw materials—hence the “imperialism” of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, wherein the advanced nations dominated the third world nations through direct colonial rule. The British Empire stretched across the globe, the French to Southeast Asia and Africa, the Dutch to Indonesia and South Africa. After World War II, the direct colonial domination of the world by the European nations ended, and the USA presided over a more purely economic domination— backed up by the mighty military of America, of course.

Economic “Imperialism” Links Global Corporations to Raw Materials. . .

47

The global capitalist world, is, then, connected, not only by contract law in the production and marketing process, by patent law in the technical and scientific process, but also by raw materials supply chains connected to the less developed nations. These raw materials supply chains are no longer imperialistically dominated by the advanced nations. Now, they too, are regulated by contract law. The third world countries do not benefit as much as the advanced nations, but they definitely do benefit. Some, like the OPEC oil nations, have gotten rich on raw material delivery. OPEC includes Saudi Arabia and Kuwait—both of which benefit greatly from the oil production which the American companies supervise and manage, as do all the OPEC nations. Of course, the American and European oil companies benefit greatly as well, gaining billions of dollars or euros and utilizing that wealth to gain enormous political influence within the democratic governments of their home countries. Sociologists, such as Emmanuelle Wallerstein, in his book, The World System,2 criticize these oil companies, and other giant corporations for their ruthless imperialistic domination of Third World countries, accusing them of extracting oil and other raw materials for their own profit, while ruining the Third World countries from which they extract these resources. According to Wallerstein, government officials are paid off and corrupted, roads are built for export, not for connecting the Third World nation’s cities and regions, the environment is often devastated by mining and fracking, and in general, the effects are negative from these imperialistic raw materials operations in the Third World. This negative view of the effect of global capitalism on the developing nations is correct, however, it is not the whole story. From the 1970s onward, the third world nations have gained enough support from the United Nations—and from liberal-left parties in the advanced nations—that they have been able to negotiate fair, lawfully contracted deals with the capitalist corporations and the capitalist-democratic nation-states. The third world nations are developing in this twenty-first century, in terms of their own economies and polities. There is still imperialist economic control by the advanced nations and the global capitalist corporations, but political control is shifting into the hands of the developing nations. Some, such as South Korea and Singapore, have been remarkable success stories. Others, like the Arabian Emirates have been somewhat successful. Others, like Mexico, Brazil, and India have a mixed record of economic development and political order. The point we wish to emphasize here is that global capitalism is linking the world together, and, this linkage is partly lawful and partly power-dominated. The lawful linkage of the world’s economic processes is a very good thing, for it institutionalizes contract law worldwide. And, this lawful behavior in the economic sphere can lead to a carryover into the political sphere.

2

Emanuel Wallerstein, The World System, NY, Basic Books, 1968.

48

6 The Structure of High Technology Global Capitalism

Obviously, the process of lawful behavior in the political sphere can be overridden by a dictatorial government—China is the perfect example of this. Yet, the case of China proves the rule: for as the Chinese economy has become more capitalist— and remarkably successful in its capitalism—the Chinese businessmen and the Chinese educated middle-class have begun to pressure for more freedom—freedom of speech, press, aristocratic production, and religion. The Chinese government, under Xi Jinping, is actively repressing this, yet, it is occurring. And, of course, the Hong Kong Chinese are desperately trying to maintain their British style lawful democracy against Beijing’s attempt to destroy it. It is also important to highlight that in Russia, the emerging capitalist economy was hijacked by Putin and his KGB cronies, such that no contract law, no patent law, no free market institutions developed. The economy is not capitalist, not bound by contract law, not run by market dynamics. The Russian economy is controlled by Putin and his clique—they are not oligarchs, they are lawless gangsters, running the economy through force, threats of force, and personal relationships linked with state power. The Russians manufacture nothing but weaponry—they have pushed their entire scientific establishment to work on advanced weapons systems, and, some space technology. The rest of the economy is a “Third World” raw materials economy based on Russia’s oil, natural gas, and mineral resources. So, there is no law fully functioning in Russia, neither in the economy or the polity. To reiterate, the good part of global capitalism is the spread of contract law. And, the hope is that eventually China and Russia will be integrated into this lawful system.

Oligopoly, Monopoly, and Competition in the Global Capitalist System In 1776,3 Adam Smith warned that monopolies ruin the proper functioning of the market—they set prices and wages and override market dynamics, taking massive profits for themselves. Yet, in 1860, Karl Marx4 describes the tendency of industrial-capitalist corporations towards consolidation and monopoly control of the market. Democratic leaders, such as Teddy Roosevelt, became famous for “trust-busting,” as control of monopolies became a major issue in the capitalist-democracies. For Marx was correct that giant corporations emerge in industrial-capitalist economies, and they tend to try to gain monopoly control over markets. Smith was also correct in that if such monopoly control is gained, the monopoly industries will 3 4

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, NY, Amazon, 2012. Karl Marx, Capital, International Publishers, 1948.

Who Controls the Giant Oligopolistic Corporations, and, Why Does It Matter?

49

override market dynamics—this increase in the profits gained by the monopolies helps them—but works to the detriment of the economy in general. Therefore, after the Great Depression of 1929, the world’s capitalist-democraticnations passed anti-monopoly laws designed to preserve free-market dynamics. The ever developing need to improve the technology of industry, however, leads to the need to raise huge amounts of capital, which in turn has encouraged the continuing trend of consolidation of the corporations. Hence, the giant corporations continue to emerge and to attempt to dominate their particular market monopolistically.5 In order to partially circumvent the anti-monopoly (antitrust) law, the modern giant corporations have allowed for a system of measured competition to emerge. Economists call this controlled competition among giant corporations “oligopoly.” Examples now abound: General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler share the American auto market—prices are set, wages are set, innovations are shared, and competition exists, but within a partially controlled market. Since World War II, the Japanese auto companies and the German auto companies have joined in this controlled market competition system. Prices are similar, innovations are shared and wages are negotiated with the unions—or set lower in nonunion production areas, such as the USA southern states, Mexico, Brazil and China. A similar oligopolistic situation exists in terms of electronics, such as televisions, computers, Smart phones, and video games and systems. Now, there is competition especially between different national corporate oligopolies—so, Samsung is in fierce competition with Apple, and, Sony put America’s electronic companies out of business, and Japanese and Chinese steel companies are pushing American steel companies to the brink of collapse. So, capitalist competition exists, and some giant corporations will be pushed out of existence. The ones that survive, however, will eventually seek to stabilize competition through oligopolistic cooperation in setting prices and wages and in controlling market dynamics.

Who Controls the Giant Oligopolistic Corporations, and, Why Does It Matter? In Marx’s day, when he wrote Das Kapital (published posthumously by Engels in the 1870s),6 the business owners controlled the giant industrial enterprises. The owners—the bourgeoisie—got rich, while the workers—the proletariat—remained poor, exploited, and overworked. The business enterprises, however, became so large and complex that ownership and control became differentiated and bureaucratized. 5 6

Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of Business Enterprise, NY, Collier Books, 1949. Karl Marx, Capital, International Publishers, 1948.

50

6 The Structure of High Technology Global Capitalism

In their monumental work, Berle and Means7 described the separation of ownership and control, which engendered a managerial revolution, in which corporate managers came to control the giant industrial enterprises, while ownership shifted to the stock market, where majority shareholders sat on a Board of Directors. The shareholders gained a percentage of the profits, while the managers took huge salaries, bonuses, and stock options to themselves. Berle and Means made it clear that the top managers gained control of the operations of the giant corporations, while the stockholders became more and more passive in their involvement in the corporations operations. Financiers from the stock market were still needed to finance expansion, new technology development and factory modernization. Financial firms became wealthy and influential as investment capital became sought after by the giant oligopolistic corporations. And, the managerial upper layers also became wealthy and, influential as their oligopolistic corporations gained enormous profits. Eventually, the top managers “stacked” the boards of directors with loyal cronies, such that they—the managers— gained control of the corporations almost completely, and, financial ownership was not exerted. Rather financial firms exerted their power, as mentioned, through the funding of investments and providing the capital needed for corporate expansion. Thorstein Veblen, in his book, The Engineers and the Price System,8 believed that because the new industrial enterprises were so dependent on scientific and technological advances, the “engineers” would come to control modern industry. He was correct that the modern corporation encourages and rapidly applies technological advances in the products and the processes of production. And, he was correct that science was funded and encouraged in order to gain new technological innovations and inventions. However, he was quite wrong about the scientists and engineers—the “technocrats”—gaining control. The managers, as Berle and Means have shown, are in full control of the oligopolistic giant corporations. The technocrats only gain control if they are the inventors of a new industry or product line. So, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg gained control of their corporations as technocrats—just as Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Enzo Ferrari controlled the companies they founded. However, as soon as these companies “go public,” stock ownership and funding pass to the managers of the financial firms, and corporate control devolves into the hands of the managers of the corporation. Why is this important? Because, the new rich are the corporate managers and financial managers of the new global capitalist system. And, this new managerial and financial upper-class is currently taking too much of a share of the corporate and national wealth to themselves. With the exception of Japan, where there is a culturally accepted limit to corporate managerial salaries and bonuses, the current

7 8

A.A. Berle and Gardiner Means, The Managerial Revolution, NY, Random House, 1951. Thorstein Veblen, The Engineers and the Price System, NY, Knopf, 1945.

Global Capitalism: Outsourcing and Automation

51

system of salaries, bonuses and stock options, is far out of balance in terms of what should exist if a democratic government is to remain stable and not devolve to fullfledged oligarchy.

Corporate and Financial Managers Take Salaries, Bonuses, and Stock Options That Are Much Too High The most incredible exhibition of greed occurred during the financial crisis of 2008. The big financial firms all collapsed from the mortgage crisis, yet, when the government bailed them out—“too big to fail,” the government officials of both parties observed—they, the managers of the firms that were “too big to fail,” took their regular bonuses as if they had made a profit that year. Thousands of Americans were losing their houses and parts of their pensions, but the Wall Street financial managers showed no guilt, received no penalties, and incredibly, gave themselves bonuses.9 Even in situations where profits are good, the managers of the modern corporations and financial firms take too much for themselves. Ownership and control have been separated, as Berle and Means10 have pointed out: the stockholders own shares, but in most cases the managers control the Board of Directors (of stockholders) by packing the boards with their own loyal people. Then, they take salaries, bonuses, and stock options for their own enrichment. The stockholders just want their shares to go up in value. If they do, these shareholders do not care what the managers take for themselves. If the stocks go down, they sell, rather than trying to influence the Board of Directors. They are only interested in short term stock profits, not long term corporate development. So, the managers get free reign and have gained almost total control over the modern corporation.11

Global Capitalism: Outsourcing and Automation Bringing labor costs down has always been a basic principle of capitalist entrepreneurs and managers. During the twentieth century, however, the unionization of industrial workers brought the labor costs up. Once capitalism became global, at the end of the twentieth century, then the option of moving industrial production to the developing nations became a possibility.

9

In 2008, stock market crashed due to a crisis in the mortgage market. A.A. Berle and Gardiner Means, The Managerial Revolution, NY, Random House, 1951. 11 Ibid. 10

52

6 The Structure of High Technology Global Capitalism

In the developing nations, labor costs are substantially cheaper. And, in countries like China and Mexico, a strong work ethic exists such that factory laborers will work hard and work well, even though they are being paid much less than their counterparts in the advanced nations. Given this fact, the outsourcing of jobs to certain developing nations exploded onto the modern capitalist economic scene. China, South Korea, India, Mexico, Brazil, and other nations that are developed enough to support a factory system, but where labor costs are cheap, became the beneficiaries of a transplanted industrial and high-tech factory system. These nations share a portion of the profits; their workers find steady jobs; their economies improve; and the corporations from the advanced nations gain more profit—even though they are sharing some of it. And, also, the power of the unions in the advanced nations has been diminished. With the unions greatly reduced in power, the corporations expanded their power both over the economy and the polity. Social Democratic parties in the UK, EU and the Democratic Party in the USA have declined while conservative parties have risen in power. We shall discuss the party realignment shortly. First, we wish to add the effects of automation on the global capitalist process. Automation means that the factory machines are tended by robotic machines, instead of human workers. And, that the robotic machines running the factory machines are controlled by artificial intelligence (AI), rather than by humans: so we have machines running machines directed by machines. Of course, the AI directors are programmed by humans, and, the programs are directed toward outcomes which the humans want. So, the actual controllers of the advanced automated production process are the humans, not the machines. Further, the humans who program the AI systems are scientists and technocrats who understand how to program and control these automated systems, but, the scientists and technocrats are controlled and directed by the managers of the specific corporate entity involved. So, for example, IBM makes “Watson,”12 an AI system that can be programmed in many ways. “Watson” has defeated chess champions and poker sharks, but “Watson” had to be programmed to do so by scientific-technologists told to do this by IBM’s managers. And, of course, “Watson” does not know what chess or poker are. AI systems have been programmed to create Bach Fugues and Haku poetry, but again, the AI system knows not what these are—humans program them to do what they want them to do. Can AI systems begin to do things on their own? Yes, when the programs are very sophisticated there are built in directives for the AI to do so. Very worrisome. Scientists and ethicists will have to work these issues out. In this treatise, we wish to emphasize the effects of automation on the political system of a nation.

12

Google “IBM Watson” for an example of artificial intelligence.

Global Capitalism: Outsourcing and Automation

53

Along with the outsourcing of jobs to the developing nations, the automation of the industrial productive system: (1) eliminates union labor entirely—the working classes replaced by machines and robots; (2) automation creates new jobs in the technical sphere and scientific sphere. Humans still have to invent, program, and control the whole new automated production process. So, technicians and scientists trained in this new field will be greatly sought after. And, there will be lower level technical jobs—the machines, the robots, and the AI systems have to be installed, maintained, repaired, and transported. All these jobs are technical, but they are more at the level of auto mechanics then pure science or engineering. And, technocrats will be needed to operate, program and innovate this rapidly evolving and changing techno-system. Also, pure scientists, who do the highest level of theoretical work, will be critical to the future evolution of this techno-system even though they have no direct power over it. Let us to emphasize here that unskilled and semiskilled industrial jobs will decline. So, the industrial unions will lose their power, and, the political parties based on union power will also decline. An example of an effect of automation on union labor can be found in the Dutch company Phillips-Norelco. They used to produce their electric shavers in the Netherlands, using unionized, well-paid Dutch workers. Now, however, either the razors are made in the developing nations, or, they are made in the Netherlands using a fully automated system that requires few union workers. The Dutch—with the giant global Corporation Phillips pushing them—have hurried to educate a new generation of technocratic workers, while phasing out the old-fashioned factory workers. This is occurring in all the advanced capitalist countries. With the changing workforce, comes a change in the political alignment of citizen-voters in the advanced capitalist-Democratic nation-states. Let us look at this.

Chapter 7

The Realignment of the Political Parties in the Advanced Capitalist Nations

The Old Left and the New Left The old left parties are the parties that represented industrial labor against industrial capitalism. The Labour Party in the UK, the Social-Democratic Parties in Germany and Scandinavia, France, Italy, Spain, and Greece, and, the Democratic Party in the USA (embodying the New Deal after the Great Depression). These old left parties produced enormous gains for the industrial working class in all these countries. They obtained: better wages and working conditions, shorter hours, paid vacations, pensions, healthcare, and so much more. The old left parties were so successful that the industrial working class and its children became part of the middle class in the advanced industrial nations. These old left parties were successful because the capitalist economies of the advanced nations became remarkably prosperous (after the Great Depression and World War II nearly wiped capitalism out). From the 1950s to the 2000s the industrial working class thrived, and the old left parties were able to thrive and win elections. Everything changed with the globalization movement. As jobs were outsourced to cheap labor countries in the developing world, the Labour Parties—the SocialistDemocratic parties—began to lose their electoral power. Union labor declined in numbers as jobs were outsourced. And, in order to save what industrial jobs they could, the old left parties made deals with the global corporations: they allowed wages to be cut and benefits trimmed—“givebacks” became the order of the day in an attempt to keep industrial production in the advanced nations. The old left parties had to do this.1 However, once they began giving back these gains, they lost the support of the working class in their own countries. The Social Democrats in Germany and Scandinavia started to lose elections, the Labour Party in the UK has lost much of 1

Robert Kuttner, Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism?, Google Books, 2000.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_7

55

56

7 The Realignment of the Political Parties in the Advanced Capitalist Nations

its base, and the Democratic Party in the USA has lost much of its working-class support. Automation in the advanced capitalist nations has increased this trend. With fewer workers needed in the factories that remain in the advance nations, the decline of the industrial working class has been hastened. Therefore, automation has also hurt the old left parties, making them seem backward and inhibited, to the new dazzling high-tech economy that is rapidly emerging in the advanced nations. So, both outsourcing and automation have reduced the electoral base of the old left parties. This is resulting in two trends—one is very good for democracy, the other disastrous: (1) the children of the industrial working class are attending colleges and universities and moving up into the new middle class. There are jobs and careers in the high tech economic world and the new middle class is therefore expanding. The expansion of the new middle class helps stabilize democracy, as they—like all middle classes—are stable, lawful, and moderate in their political views.2 But, (2), the negative trend is that citizens still working at industrial “blue-collar” jobs are angry and frustrated because they are losing some of their benefits and they have received pay cuts (so they can compete with the cheap labor of the developing nations). Seeing that the old left parties have “sold them out” and can produce no new games, these working-class voters have turned to the right wing nationalist parties:3 these are the Trump voters in the USA, the Brexit voters in the UK, the Le Penn voters in France, the neo-Nazi voters in Germany, the Orban voters in Hungary, the Law & Justice Party voters in Poland, the Five Star Party in Italy and the Golden Dome Party in Greece. We shall have more to say about these right wing nationalist parties and the immigration issue in the USA, UK and EU.4 Here, we wish to emphasize the decline of the old left parties in the advanced, high technology capitalist nations. Before discussing the old conservative parties, such as the Christian Democrats in Germany and the Republican Party in the USA, we wish to describe the rise of the new left, embodying the Politically Correct (“PC”) views on race, women, gays, and immigrants. For, the new left, the PC left, has been absorbed into both the old left parties and the old conservative parties! The reason for this seemingly peculiar phenomenon is that it is the new middle class that carries the PC views and spreads the PC values. And, the new middle class, being absorbed into the high technology capitalist economy in the advanced nations, is split in its voting—some vote old left and some old conservative, depending upon their family traditions their ethnic origins, and their current careers. This political phenomenon lessens the differences between the old parties— because the middle class segments of them agree on the PC values—that race should

2

Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. Ronald M. Glassman, The Future of Democracy, Netherlands, Springer International Publishers, 2017. 4 Ibid. 3

The Old Capitalist Parties and the New High-Tech Capitalist Parties

57

not make a difference, that women should get equal pay and apply for all careers, that gays should not be discriminated against, and that immigrants are welcome and necessary in the labor force. These PC values, however, are not shared by the non-college educated working class. They hate the immigrants and believe these immigrants will take their jobs (work for less), they resent women in the workforce—getting ahead of them and pushing them out of jobs, and refusing to stay in the home and be mothers for their children; and they hate gays—they are homophobic, and see gays as a threat to their macho masculinity, and lesbianism as a threat to motherhood and femininity. So, the new left—the PC left—drives the working class farther to the right. And, the right wing nationalist parties use the immigration issue, and the gay liberation movement to stir up the already angry workers. The immigrants, gays, and liberated women become scapegoats for the workers, who turn away from the two traditional old left or conservative parties, and are now voting for right-wing parties.

The Old Capitalist Parties and the New High-Tech Capitalist Parties The old conservative parties were pro-big business and finance—we cannot call them old right-wing parties because those were fascist-militarist parties (just as the extreme old left parties were communist-dictatorial parties). The old conservative parties were, of course, pro-big business and finance but they were also pro-Protestant-Christian “work ethic,” “moneymaking as a sign of heavenly grace ethic,” anti-labor unions, and pro-traditional family and gender roles (remember that the Communists wanted to liberate women and abolish religion).5 So, what of the new conservative parties? The old capitalist Christian parties have adapted themselves to both the new high-technology capitalist economy, and the PC values of the new left. This is actually not a strange combination! For, the new high technology economy—based on science, technological intervention, automation, artificial intelligence, and computerization of all aspects of modern life—can accommodate women, gays, Blacks, and immigrants from anywhere in the world—as long as they have a college education and are tech savvy and computer literate. So, the new conservative parties are pro-capitalist—enshrining entrepreneurialism; and pro-finance—expanding the stock market financial firms beyond investment capital and into pension funding, private healthcare insurance funding, and hedge fund “betting.” The new conservatives are also pro-technology development—pushing science and engineering advances toward a total world of computerized interaction, and, encouraging the dissemination of technological products and systems which are altering the world in spectacular—and yet barely understood—ways. 5

Karl Marx, The Woman Question, NY, International Publishers, 1952.

58

7 The Realignment of the Political Parties in the Advanced Capitalist Nations

So, the new conservative parties are not conservative—they not only are pushing the envelope of technological change into the boundaries of space and beyond natural boundaries, on earth. But, they are also quite committed to PC social values. Then, however, what happens to the Christian family values portion of their old programs? This has begun to split off from the old parties, or, as in the USA, to rebel against the conservative center, and establish a conservative right wing—not fascistmilitarist, but fundamental Christian—Protestant and Catholic (and Orthodox Jewish). In the USA, the Republican Party is split: the John Birch Society and the Tea Party segment rejects PC values—demands that gays go back into the closet and stop demonstrating, opposes gay marriage, prefers women as mothers in the family, opposes abortion, and opposes immigration—especially brown and black immigration from Latin America and the Caribbean. The big business segment of the Republican Party has lost control of the party in this Trump Era. However, tech industries and Wall Street still have influence, and may regain control of the Republican Party in the future. In the EU, the old conservative parties have been successful at absorbing PC values and maintaining control of the high-tech capitalist economy. Thus, in the EU, though the workers have been supporting right-wing parties, the old conservative parties have held their own as leaders of the new economic and social order. In the UK, the “Brexit” problem has driven the working class to the right, weakened the Labour Party, but also weakening the old Conservative Party—this latter, because the Conservatives are split over the EU membership. Desiring political autonomy, but needing economic integration, the conservatives simply do not know how to achieve these conflicting goals concerning the EU. PC values in the UK have also split the working class off from the new middle class. The workers resent immigrants and oppose further immigration; they are antigay and anti-women’s liberation as well. Whereas, the new middle class favors immigration, is for gay liberation and strongly asserts women’s rights. The new middle class—especially young voters—favor integration with the EU. To sum up then: just as there is an old left and a new left, there is also an old conservative and a new conservative movement. And, as the new middle class of college and university educated citizens becomes the majority—over against the old industrial working class—the old party labels just don’t work anymore. Both the labor and capital parties are now facing a new economic and political reality: the economy is now a high technology, computerized, automated global capitalist economy; and, the political world is divided between PC and anti-PC citizens. The capitalist managers of high tech corporate and financial firms are more likely to be pro-PC than the industrial laborers! Therefore, as realignment of the political parties is occurring, during the transition, party labels can be very misleading—who is radical, who conservative? Remember, too, that wherever there is rapid social change and political confusion, there will be extremist authoritarian movements, and, the rise of demagogic dictators attempting to override democracy and establish tyranny. Plato made it clear, back in the Golden age of Greece, that even though democracy is flawed,

The Old Capitalist Parties and the New High-Tech Capitalist Parties

59

and oligarchy selfish, tyranny is the worst form of government—a tyrant will do what a man in his worst nightmare might dream of doing.6

6

Plato, The Republic, London, Penguin Classes, 1950.

Chapter 8

Global Capitalism vs. Geo-Political Nationalism

The World Is Economically Linked One of the mistakes that the Marxist intellectuals make is to believe that because capitalism becomes multinational, and, because capitalism engages in imperialism, it is therefore a monolithic system that dominates the world—it is one mega system of oligarchic domination by the rich capitalists who control the world’s economy.1 This is what Immanuel Wallerstein describes in his book The World System, and Marx and Engels would have agreed.2 However, there is another level of world organization—or should we say world disorganization. That is, each nation-state has its own national interest, and this national interest is not only economic, it is also military, political, and cultural. In a recent book entitled, The Next Hundred Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century, George Friedman,3 describes the geopolitical processes that generated world European empires, and then two terrible world wars. The Marxists were correct, the capitalist nations should not have been in competition with one another. But, of course, they were: England with France, both with Germany, all with the USA, and then Japan. What seems to be true—and this is very hopeful—is that once a nation-state goes capitalist and democratic, the geopolitical competition is contained within a context of lawful disputes, rather than military violence.

1

Emanuel Wallerstein, The World System, NY, Basic Books, 1968. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, International Publishers, 1949. 3 George Friedman, The Next Hundred Years, Google Books, 2018. 2

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_8

61

62

8

Global Capitalism vs. Geo-Political Nationalism

The World Is Politically Divided However, as long as there are non-democratic nations, such as China, Russia and North Korea, the geopolitical competition can burst the bonds of law, and explode into military violence. Russia attacks Ukraine, instead of negotiating for Black Sea ports and economic trade agreements. China builds military islands in the South China Sea, instead of joining the Southeast Asian Trade Association. And, of course, North Korea develops nuclear weapons instead of modern farming and manufacturing, as in South Korea. So geopolitical national interest does exist as a separate phenomenon from global capitalism. The United States does compete with Canada in terms of dairy products, and with Mexico in terms of agricultural produce. These are real national interests that are different from capitalist profit motivation. Donald Trump has seized on America’s geopolitical interests and started trade wars with China and Canada. However, again, where the nations involved are capitalist and democratic the geopolitical differences will be worked out lawfully. But, since the entire “Third World” is not yet Democratic, and not yet even capitalist, the threat of military violence is ever present. And, global capitalism cannot prevent this military violence. Only with the development of most of the world towards capitalism and democracy, will geopolitical military violence disappear on “The Big Blue Marble.” From space, the geopolitical bickering on earth seems ridiculous. However, the majority of the world’s peoples are still on earth. And remember, it is not global capitalism that engenders peaceful, lawful adjudication of national disputes. Democracy must accompany the global capitalism for a lawful world order to emerge. This is why it is so important for Hong Kong to be the Chinese model for the world to emulate, rather than Beijing. At this moment in history, Beijing has the military power to engage in geopolitical violence, while Hong Kong is helpless. So, geopolitical nationalism is definitely to be feared beyond the ills that global capitalism engenders. One hopes that the United Nations, as weak and divided as it is, can help establish a context of international law that will contain the geopolitical nationalist disputes within a negotiation process, rather than direct military confrontation. There is hope, for even Putin, geopolitical expansionist that he is, has kept the Russian military violence contained locally, even in the Ukraine. China, too, has localized its military violence. As for North Korea, let us hope Kim Jong Un does not blow up the world. To conclude: global capitalism helps unite the world through multinational productions and the integration of the world economy. And, it spreads rational law, though contract law. This is good for world stability. The imperialism in the Third World is real and problematic, however, geopolitical nationalists competition is more of a threat to world peace than global capitalism— Marxist intellectuals notwithstanding.

Chapter 9

The Managerial and Entrepreneurial Rich Take a Huge Percentage of the Wealth to Themselves

Fair Wealth Distribution After World War II Capitalism, as a system, has always led to wealth inequality. According to the rules of the system, all profits go to the business owners, the entrepreneurs. Of course, the laborers who make the profit possible gain a small share in the form of wages. During the industrial era, profits soared as enterprises became enormous. And, unions eventually won higher wages for the workers. Under pressure from the communist and socialist movements, the business owners gave in to the union workers’ demands for higher wages and better working conditions, pensions, and health insurance. After World War II, there was a kind of détente between business and labor— wealth was shared with the workers, and a large, educated, white collar middle class emerged. Politics was temporarily stable, and economics was gearing up towards a new technological revolution that would take industrial production—and corporate profits—to a new level. The middle class continued to grow and the workers’ wages and benefits expanded. This stable situation remained in effect in the EU, the UK, and Japan. But, in the USA, the tumultuous events of the 1960s and early 1970s disrupted the equilibrium in politics and economics.

The 1960s Radical Movements The exciting and wonderful movements of the 1960s and 1970s would lead to dramatic changes in society—not only American culture, but world culture. It all began with the Black Civil Rights Movement, which demanded an end to racism, equal rights for all people, and economic opportunity for all.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_9

63

64

9

The Managerial and Entrepreneurial Rich Take a Huge Percentage of the. . .

Then the young people of America—already radicalized by the Black Movement—turned against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. The antiwar movement energized and radicalized a whole generation of Americans. But, when the war did not end, the young people became disillusioned—dropped out of the economy and turned to drugs and sex for solace. A sexual revolution against Christian Puritanism exploded out of the disillusioned youth movement “Make Love Not War,” became the mantra of the “Hippies,” the “Flower Children” of the late 1960s. On the heels of the sexual revolution—pardon the pun—the Women’s Liberation Movement emerged. The women threw away their high heels, burned their bras, and demanded equal rights in the family, the career-world, the universities, sports—even the military.1 As with the Black Civil Rights Movement which demanded an end to racism, the women’s movement demanded an end to sexism, and a redefinition of gender itself. If this was not enough, gay liberation followed on the shirttails of the women’s movement (another bad pun). Homosexual men and lesbian women came out of the closet, and they too demanded equal rights. All these movements spread from America to France, Germany, England, Italy, and eventually to Japan. Young people disrupted society with demonstrations and demands for an end to all racism, sexism, discrimination against gays and, a more humanistic foreign policy based on negotiations and institution building, rather than war. In this treatise, we wish to emphasize that the radical movements of the 1960s and 1970s changed the world for the better in terms of race and gender, but the effect on the capitalist economies was not so good. For, the stability that had been reached after World War II became disrupted. And, the backlash against these movements by the more conservative older generation ended up by creating policies that would favor the business rich and hurt the working class and the middle class. Again, this trend started in America, then spread to Europe and the UK “Flower children” marched in Paris, Milan, Hamburg, Amsterdam and London—they demanded an end to “imperialist” wars, colonial racism, and male “patriarchal” society.

The Backlash Against the Sixties Radicalism Enter Ronald Reagan: If the sixties radical movements started in America, they would end there first as well. Reagan’s election signaled an end to the sixties radicalism—not the end of the Black Movement or the Women’s Movement or the Gay Movement, but an end to

1

Kevin Phillips, The Politics of Rich and Poor, Amazon Books, 1999.

The Backlash Against the Sixties Radicalism

65

the drug culture and the withdrawal of the young people from the capitalist economy (pardon the pun again). Capitalism was re-enshrined as the most productive and creative economic system. Careers in management and entrepreneurship were strongly encouraged. The children of the “Hippies” went to college, and turned toward careers in finance—yes “Wall Street” was back in favor—big corporations, law and medicine. The sexual revolution remained as culturally established, but the youth of the 1980s and 1990s left Zen Buddhism and the cults of the sixties, and returned to traditional Christian religion, or, no religion at all. During the Reagan presidency, in order to encourage business expansions and employ the young people, huge tax cuts were passed by Congress, both for the corporations and the individual rich; capital gains taxes on stocks and bonds were lowered to 15%; and the estate taxes were cut significantly. A major departure from the “progressive income tax” programs that had stabilized the capitalist economy after the Great Depression created a windfall of profits for the corporations and their managers. Millionaires became billionaires—a new word was coined.2 At the same time, Reagan and his newly energized Republican Party went after the unions. “Union Busting” became the policy of the Reagan Republic—and the working class was being hurt by the declining power of the unions. None of this was happening in the EU, but, with Margaret Thatcher’s election in the UK, it all happened in England. In fact, Thatcher and Reagan became fast friends, as their policies encouraged corporate managers and encouraged entrepreneurialism, while denigrating and disempowering the labor unions. The Social Democratic Parties prevented this from happening in the EU Nations. However, the technocratic revolution would soon sweep across all of the advanced capitalist nations, and empower and enrich the corporations and downgrade and disempower the unions, even in the EU. We shall discuss this shortly. After Reagan, a series of American presidents—both Democrats and Republicans—continued Reagan’s policies. President Bill Clinton cut taxes further for the corporations and for the Wall Street financial firms. George W. Bush cut taxes for the corporations and the rich even further, and finally, under President Trump— and the Republican-controlled Congress—taxes for the rich were cut beyond the imagination of even the most conservative economists. In fact, these tax cuts were so extreme, that the American budget was thrown into a trillion dollar deficit—conservative economists of the Chicago School rebelled against such deficits, while socialist economists, such as Pikety,3 suddenly became prominent.

2

Thomas Piketty, Capitalism and Inequality, Amazon Books, 2018. Ronald M. Glassman, The Future of Democracy, Netherlands, Springer International Publishers, 2017. 3

66

9

The Managerial and Entrepreneurial Rich Take a Huge Percentage of the. . .

The High-Technology Revolution Spawns a Class of Global Billionaires Hiding in the shadows of this pro-capitalist, pro-rich, anti-labor trend, the hightechnology computerized “cyber world” emerged and then expanded explosively becoming a world changing phenomenon. Everything became computerized. A whole new world of social relations based on the email web linked the world together. A truly global culture emerged, where friends, family, and colleagues could communicate instantly anywhere around the globe. New High Tech corporations emerged—their entrepreneurial founders, and their corporate managers became billionaires—rich, seemingly overnight. And this happened first in Silicon Valley, California, but then in Boston, Houston, New York, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Hong Kong—Kowloon, and Shanghai in China. The wonderful news is that a whole world of high technology products and processes has transformed the world and brought it closer together—we speak of a “global village.” And, the high-tech computer revolution has engendered an expansion of the new middle class. Careers for technocrats, engineers, scientists, and corporate managers have expanded in the high tech sectors across the globe—even in India and Southeast Asia. An expanding middle-class is good for democracy—it helps create stability. Unfortunately, however, the high-tech revolution also has generated a new segment of billionaires—entrepreneurs, managers, and financiers. It is only unfortunate because these new billionaires—though they are often P.C.—pro-black, pro-women, pro-gay—are also quite selfish in their accumulation of private wealth. These billionaires have benefited from the very un-progressive tax laws in the USA and the UK. So successful have their high-tech corporations become, that they are even eroding the relatively progressive tax system in the EU countries. (The billionaires in the EU are moving their wealth to tax shelters in Switzerland, Monaco and Luxembourg, and a 2% wealth tax was legally evaded, leading to its discontinuation.) Both the new and the old corporate managers, financiers, an entrepreneurs, have found ways to avoid paying their taxes. And, this is the problem we wish to present here. For, when the rich do not pay their taxes, they withhold the wealth of a nation from the middle class and the workers. This weakens the middle class and shakes their stabilizing effect on the polity. And worse, it angers the working class, who tend to misdirect their anger at immigrants, gays, and women, leading them away from democracy and towards right wing nationalist movements.4 Let us look at this very worrisome trend of the capitalist rich avoiding their taxes.

4

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, International Publishers, 1949.

Capital Gains Taxes on Stock Income

67

How the Rich Avoid Paying Taxes and Override Progressive Income Tax The idea of a progressive income tax goes all the way back to The Communist Manifesto.5 Marx and Engels put forward the idea for the period of transition from capitalism to communism (which they believed would occur). After the Great Depression of 1929, this idea was implemented, as the capitalistdemocratic nations feared a socialist uprising. Powered by the Social Democratic Parties in northern Europe, by the Labour Party in the UK, and by the New Deal Democratic Party in the USA, the progressive income tax was implemented. The rich—usually the top 10%—were taxed at a high rate of 50%, while the middle classes were taxed at around 20%, and the working class less. After World War II, the progressive income tax was upheld—the rich in America and the UK feeling patriotic and willing to contribute their fair share to rebuild their nation after the war were willing to pay more than 50%—so, too, in France and the Netherlands. In Germany, guilt about support for the Nazis and Hitler overwhelmed the business rich, such that they actively cooperated with the progressive income tax imposed and they helped rebuild Germany. Sweden and Norway also imposed a heavily progressive tax system, and there, too, guilt played a part, for these nations had cooperated with Nazi Germany. The progressive income tax held until the 1980s reactionary period against the 1960s “counter-culture” movements. With the massive reaffirmation of capitalism in the USA and Europe, the rich began to become emboldened to subvert the progressive income tax system. In America, Reagan, then Clinton, then George W. Bush cut the top income tax rate down to 35%. Then Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump, passed an even lower rate for the top 10%. In Europe, where memories of World War II, fascism and Nazism, were more vivid, and where the Social Democratic Parties still maintained their power, the progressive income tax was salvaged. So, the situation in the USA is much worse than in Europe or the UK.

Capital Gains Taxes on Stock Income In all the capitalist-democratic countries, except Japan, the rich began scheming to avoid the high personal income tax bracket embodied in the progressive income tax system. The rich began avoiding progressive taxation in two ways: (1) shifting their personal income into stocks and bonds and thus paying the capital gains tax, instead of the income tax. Since the capital gains tax has been set far lower—15%—the rich

5

Gabriel Zukman, The Hidden Wealth of Nations, University of Chicago Press, 2017.

68

9

The Managerial and Entrepreneurial Rich Take a Huge Percentage of the. . .

avoid the high income tax bracket; and (2) if the capital gains scheme was not enough, the rich—in all the capitalist countries, except Japan, began hiding their income in secret bank accounts, outside of their country of residence.

Hidden Bank Accounts6 Switzerland led the way, by expanding its banking systems to secretly accommodate the accounts of the rich Europeans, British, and Americans. Monaco followed suit, gaining large amounts of capital from celebrities, sports stars, and businessmen who sought to avoid paying income tax in their home country. Closer to the USA, the Cayman Islands and Panama opened banks that actively sought after and hid the fortunes of American rich individuals. Mitt Romney, while running for president, admitted that he had his money in Cayman Islands “tax shelters.”7 Cyprus, Brunei, and other small nations, also have banks that offer tax shelters to the rich. Cyprus, most infamously, has hidden fortunes of the so-called Russian “oligarchs,” who control the oil, natural gas, minerals, and raw materials industries in Russia. A recent book, the Hidden Wealth of Nations, by Gabriel Zucman,8 presents all the details of the hidden banking systems all over the world, and the ways in which the world’s capitalist rich have been avoiding paying their fair share of the taxes. The title of the book is instructive, because the wealth that is hidden by the rich is removed from that nation’s wealth pool, such that it cannot be used to: rebuild infrastructure and modernize it; to fund education; healthcare; and other safety net and core societal programs; and it cannot be used for investment in its home country’s industries. All of this is disastrous economically and politically. Therefore, whether the progressive income tax system has been gutted, as in the USA, or whether it has been retained, as in the EU and UK, the rich have been able to subvert its goal of taxing the rich at a higher rate than the middle class or workingclass. Three: Even the Estate Tax, which taxed the income of the rich as an “inheritance tax,” has been reduced substantially in the USA. This Estate Tax was a good thing, for, it still allowed the children of the rich to gain a huge inheritance, but it taxed such inheritance sufficiently to spread the nation’s wealth to the other classes—who, after all participate in the economic processes that produce the wealth of a nation.

6

Ibid. Ibid. 8 John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Google Books. 7

Extremes of Wealth Destabilizes Democracy

69

Why Is the Withholding of Taxes by the Rich Disastrous Economically and Politically? In terms of economic growth, the siphoning off of huge amounts of capital into the personal bank accounts (hidden accounts) and stock portfolios of the new billionaires is disastrous. As John Maynard Keynes9 has told us, this capital should be redirected by the government into: infrastructure modernization, expansion, and repair; investment into new or expanding industries; investment into research and development of the science and technology necessary for the creative process and new products and new processes of production; into wage and salary increases for the working class an middle-class; and finally, into funding education, universities, healthcare, childcare and other “welfare state” programs. There is a huge amount of capital that is precisely being removed from the advanced capitalist economies by billionaire managers, financiers, and entrepreneurs. The billionaires use this skimmed capital for their own lifestyle aggrandizement. They buy private jets, luxury condominiums, “McMansions,” 20,000 dollar watches, designer clothes and more. They have been developing an “aristocratic” lifestyle, while the lifestyle of the middle-class and working-class, while good compared to the past, has not been improving. Making this vast, selfishly accumulated capital available to a nation’s economy is critical for both the growth of the economy and the equality within the advanced nation-states.

Extremes of Wealth Destabilizes Democracy In terms of the polity, extreme wealth differentials tend to destabilize the political system. When the rich take huge amounts of capital for themselves and flaunt it on their personal lifestyles, while the middle and working classes struggle to pay their mortgages, their credit cards, and their children’s college tuition, discontent, anger and confusion will typify the political process. Scapegoats will be found: immigrants will be blamed, Blacks and Jews will be blamed—for political anger is rarely rational, and it is usually misdirected with the encouragement of demagogues and would be dictators. For a democracy to remain stable the middle class must be prosperous, welleducated, and expanding.10 And, the working class must be paid well enough to be moving upward towards middle-class status. This stability cannot happen if the rich

9

Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. Joshua Ober, Demokratia (Hoplite Phalanx), Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1997.

10

70

9

The Managerial and Entrepreneurial Rich Take a Huge Percentage of the. . .

take too much of a nation’s wealth for themselves, hide it from the tax collectors, and then use it for their own aristocratic lifestyle.

Are the New Rich of the Twenty-First Century an Aristocracy? The new capitalist rich in the expanding global capitalist system are creating an aristocratic lifestyle for themselves. But are they an aristocracy? In ancient Greece, the military aristocracy lost its power when the new military formation—the heavy armored hoplite phalanx—replaced the Calvary as the main military formation.11 The middle-class and working-class, who made up the phalanx, became empowered, while the aristocracy, who made up the Calvary, lost their power. However, in the fully democratic assemblies that emerged, the old military aristocrats—and newly rich trade merchants—found a way to establish their leadership and the assemblies, and to redefine the term “aristoi”—the best. Having more leisure time than the middle and working classes, the old aristocracy and new rich had more time to study and gain an excellent education from the sophists—itinerant teachers—who flocked to the wealthier city-states. The old aristocracy had wealth from their estates, which had become cash crop productive, and the merchants had wealth from their craft workshops and banks. They used their wealth to pay the sophists, and they use their leisure to extend their education. The old aristocracy and the new merchant rich became the best educated in their city-states—so, they were still “aristois.” Further, they had time to work out vigorously at the gymnasia, exercising and weightlifting such that they became body beautiful. And, in the Homo-erotic cultural atmosphere of ancient Greece, this gave the old aristocracy and knew Rich a further claim to be the best—the best looking—“aristoi.”12 Most importantly, in the democracies of ancient Greece, policies were debated at the citizens assembly. Anyone who was exceptionally persuasive, gained prestige as a leader. Understanding this, the old aristocracy a new rich studied the art of rhetoric—debating—and learned to debate both sides of an issue, and how to persuade a crowd.13 The old aristocracy and new rich, well-educated and skilled at oratory—became leaders at the citizens assemblies in many Greek city-states. They were recognized as great orators, smart leaders, persuasive and intelligent men—they were “aristoi”— the best.

11

Stephen G. Miller, Ancient Greek Athletics, Google Books, 2001. Joshua Ober, Demokratia (Hoplite Phalanx), Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1997. 13 Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. 12

The Democratization of Education

71

Something like this happened in Great Britain during the seventeenth to twentieth centuries. In Britain, the merchant-gentry of the countryside, having made fortunes in the woolens industry and overseas trade, establish themselves as the best educated—private boarding schools, Oxford and Cambridge, and Saint Andrews, etc.— and copying ancient Greece, rhetoric, logic, math, science, and philosophy were taught and absorbed.14 The British gentry became an educated “aristocracy”—carefully restricting this grand education to themselves and keeping the working class out. The gentry became great parliamentary debaters, excelled in the sciences, and even worked out physically in rowing, tennis, and horsemanship (Polo). They considered themselves a new aristocracy and gained aristocratic titles from the monarchy, which was under their control since 1689. The gentry even adopted an aristocratic speech pattern of elegance, style and erudite vocabulary. Since the British working classes were kept out of this elite educational system until the twentieth century, the British gentry were an educational aristocracy who made great contributions in science, and, who dominated parliament, such that Britain was an oligarchy, until the twenty-first century. French, German, and American upper classes—countryside gentry and new capitalist rich—followed the English gentry and attempted to become an educated aristocracy and a political oligarchy. In the United States, private boarding schools, Ivy League universities, and private men’s clubs had the effect of creating an educational elite who dominated American industry and American politics.15 In the era of the “robber barons” the industrial and commercial rich—most of whom were “WASPS”—while Anglo-Saxon Protestants (actually made up of English, Scottish, German, and Scandinavian Americans)—established themselves as an educated aristocracy, copying the British gentry.16

The Democratization of Education However, the United States of America was a democracy, and so the oligarchic attempt by the industrial-capitalist rich of the North East, was met with Democratic indignation from the Midwest and Far West. And, after the Great Depression of 1929, Roosevelt—a member of the WASP “aristocracy” himself—brought in midwesterners, eastern Jews and non-WASPS of every ethnic group in America, including the Irish Catholics, but not yet the American Blacks. World War II demanded the equal sacrifice of all Americans in order to fight and win a two front war against the Germans and the Japanese. Everyone pulled together.

14

C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite, NY Free Press, 1962. E. Digby Baltzel, The Protestant Establishment, NY, Random House, 1952. 16 C. Wright Mills, White Collar, NY Free Press, 1951. 15

72

9

The Managerial and Entrepreneurial Rich Take a Huge Percentage of the. . .

After World War II, the American WASP “aristocracy” the boarding schools, the Ivy League universities, and the private clubs were opened up to all Americans who had the educational qualifications, and the wealth, to afford them. A similar pattern occurred in Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, democratizing education, political participation, and economic opportunity. Great Britain was much slower in this regard, but the middle class did eventually gain entrance. What is the situation now—are the new capitalist rich an aristocracy?

The Meritocracy and the New Middle Class In the world of the twenty-first-century, in the world of global capitalism, most scientific and technological breakthroughs come from the new middle class.17 It is the new middle class, who, motivated by upward mobility pressure, excel academically. The children of the rich—statistically—do less well. This is a global phenomenon. Thus, corporate and financial managers, and would be entrepreneurs, seek out and hire scientists and technocrats from the upwardly mobile middle classes. It is these scientists and technocrats who are the new educational elite, not, the rich. Of course, if a middle-class scientist or technocrat becomes a successful entrepreneur, then he or she becomes a billionaire, a member of the managerial upperclass. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and others in the USA, along with dozens of Hong Kong and Shanghai Chinese billionaires, began as middle-class scientific and technocratically educated individuals. What is our point here? The new billionaire rich are not an educated aristocracy. They are not the best educated and the best spoken. However, the new billionaires are excellent managers, financiers, and entrepreneurs. Yet, their success depends on the new middle class—better educated, and more learned scientifically and technocratically. So, no, the new global capitalist rich are not an aristocracy—nor are they recognized as such by the middle and working classes. Do they deserve their riches? Yes, insofar as they manage, finance, and innovate entrepreneurially, and do these things well. But, how much wealth do they deserve? Remember, the new rich cannot run their enterprises without the thousands of middle-class and working-class individuals who fill the organizational positions that allow the firm to function. Long ago, the progressive income tax formula set a fair pattern for wealth accumulation and wealth sharing. The new rich should pay their fair share in income taxes—they must pay a larger percentage then the middle and working classes.

17

Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarianism, Amazon Books, 2012.

Is There Anything Good About the Aristocratic Lifestyle?

73

The current trend to lower the top income tax bracket, to lower the capital gains tax on stocks and bonds, and to allow the existence of tax shelters—all benefiting the rich at the expense of the middle and working classes—is unfair, unjust, immoral, and, bad economically and politically (as we have shown). What is the solution? The solution is simple to conceive and difficult to implement: return to a progressive income tax system; raise the capital gains tax—and institute a Financial Transaction Tax on all stock transactions—and make tax shelters illegal.

Is There Anything Good About the Aristocratic Lifestyle? Emulation and the desire for upward mobility on the part of the middle classes is a motivating factor in the global capitalist system. At its best it creates a push for middle-class individuals to buy designer clothes, expensive jewelry, fancier cars, improved housing, travel on tours and cruise ships.18 At its worst, it creates what Marx called, “The Fetish of Commodities,”19 where, no matter how much you have, you buy more, and where every commodity is greatly desired, but then becomes boring, such that only a new one will improve one’s mood—for a moment. Buying new and improved products is good, it sets in motion the capitalist creative productive process of constantly creating inventing and producing new products in order to outcompete the competition. This is good—it is why capitalism is so productive and creative technologically. But, of course, it is bad, because buying new products does not produce happiness. Happiness is attained through human relationships—love, sex, family, friends. Happiness is attained by achieving one’s personal goals. Happiness, of course, is elusive, and barely attainable. But one thing is certain, buying more “things” rarely makes one happy for long. For the “things” become outdated or boring, such that a new “thing” must be purchased. Still, when the communist societies ratcheted down the production and purchasing of commodities, the societies became drab, dull, unexciting, artistically challenged, and creatively empty. So, some amount of aristocratic splendor is necessary—not only to motivate the middle and working classes toward attaining such a lifestyle, but also to enhance architecture and product design, and clothing styles. The advanced capitalist societies exhibit a dazzling architectural display, and the stores are beautiful, and the people are well-dressed, and the products are a stylish. This is all good. However, it can be attained while still institutionalizing a socially fair and morally just taxation system. The new Rich will still retain enough wealth to

18 Karl Marx, “The Fetish of Commodities,” in Marx and Engels Collected Works, International Publishers, 1948. 19 Ibid.

74

9

The Managerial and Entrepreneurial Rich Take a Huge Percentage of the. . .

live a luxury lifestyle. But, they will not retain so much of a society’s wealth as to ruin it economically and destabilize it politically.

Chapter 10

Taxing the Rich

Taxing the rich has become problematical in the advanced capitalist countries. In the EU, for instance, a “wealth tax” of 2% on all billionaires was passed. But, it could not be enforced: the rich would not comply voluntarily—they hid their money increasingly in secret bank accounts in Switzerland, Monaco, and Brunei. So much wealth was hidden away by the rich in the EU that the cost of enforcing compliance rose beyond that of the income received, such that the EU countries withdrew the wealth tax! In the USA, not only have the billionaires utilized offshore, hidden bank accounts, but the Republican Party—financed by the right wing American rich— passed new tax laws so favorable to the rich as to make the progressive income tax a sham. So, how do we tax the rich in this era of global capitalism in which the power and prestige of the corporate rich have been increasing?

The Progressive Income Tax Revitalized Though the “2% wealth tax” was repealed in the EU, the progressive nature of the income tax has been maintained. In the EU (including the UK up to 2019), the top bracket is close to 50% for billionaires. Because of this high income tax bracket, many billionaires hide their money, as we have established. However, in the EU, enough of the rich do comply, such that a large amount of revenue is gained from the rich in the EU nations. Enough revenue is obtained from the progressive income tax systems to fund: health insurance, grade school, gymnasiums and university education (all are free), 5 weeks paid vacation for all workers, child care for preschool children, and other services. A full-scale welfare state is funded—in part—from the EU’s truly progressive income tax system. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_10

75

76

10

Taxing the Rich

In the USA, the progressive income tax has been gutted—gutted so badly that the richest Americans often pay no taxes at all, or, pay at a rate lower than their secretaries. Warren Buffett, a well-known American financier and billionaire, famously stated that he pays his taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. From Reagan to Trump, the Republican Party has handed huge tax cuts to the rich—both personal tax cuts and corporate tax cuts. Thus, for instance, Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon—and a great innovator in high tech distribution—paid no personal or corporate taxes in 2018. Democratic Party presidents, like Bill Clinton, also favored tax cuts for the rich. There has been a backlash against this policy, as revenue for healthcare, education, and infrastructure has declined precipitously, while the federal deficit has ballooned. New tax policies have been put forth by all the Democratic Party candidates running for president in 2020. If the Democrats win both the presidency and the Senate, then a new, much more progressive, tax bill will be passed. This is a big “if.” However, the chances of repealing the present non-progressive tax code is actually very great. Except for the extreme right wing Republicans, most Republicans realize that the tax cuts have been too extreme and that revenue for infrastructure, education, and healthcare must be generated if the USA is not to lose its leadership position in the world. The new progressive tax plans that have been championed by the Democrats running for president in 2020 include a top tax bracket approaching 40% for those in the top 10% of income. This would generate a substantial amount of capital, which could be used for infrastructure modernization, healthcare, education, and even college tuition remission. Whether a truly progressive income tax can be reinstituted in the USA, depends on the citizens and their votes. Will the rich have so much influence and control in the electoral process that the Democrats and moderate Republicans will lose? Possibly. However, America’s electoral history usually shows a rebound from the extremes of right or left. And, right now, in 2019, the right extremists have gotten their way. Most likely, the moderate middle will vote them out in 2020. We shall see. The fate of the progressive income tax rests with the voters in 2020. For, even moderate Democrats, like Joe Biden favor a new, more progressive income tax law. Let me conclude by reminding the reader that the progressive income tax, proposed originally by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, was taken up by the Social Democrats in Europe and by the New Deal Democrats in the USA. It is still the best way to ensure that the capitalist rich pay their fair share of taxes, and that revenue for infrastructure modernization, social safety net, and educational programs becomes available in the advanced capitalist nations. It should also be pointed out, that the progressive income tax allows the billionaires—and all the citizens in the top 10% of income—to retain enough wealth to still be “rich.” Billionaires will still be billionaires, while enough of the wealth generated by the productive and creative capitalist economy is made available for the good of all citizens.

The Financial Transaction Tax: The Tiny Tax That Generates Billions in Revenue

77

Raising the Capital Gains Tax Above 15% One of the ways in which the global capitalist rich avoid paying the progressive income tax is by shifting their wealth into stocks and bonds, and then drawing their monthly income from their stock portfolio. In this way, instead of paying income taxes at a rate of, say, 40%, they pay capital gains taxes, at a rate of 15%—lower than the rate of the poor! In order to maintain a fair taxation system, the capital gains tax must be raised.1 It probably should be doubled to 30% in order to maintain tax equity. This latter will affect the upper-middle-class, as well as the superrich. However, there is no other way to gain tax revenue from stock market “tax shelters” except to raise the capital gains tax. Gerald Scorce has written many articles on the capital gains tax, explaining its intricacies.2 In the end, raising this tax to around 30% is the only way possible to prevent the rich from using the stock market as a tax shelter. Since the stock markets are now global, in New York, London, Frankfurt, Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo, and more, a global consensus on capital gains taxation might eventually emerge, because the rich in all these stock market hubs use the stock market as a tax shelter.

The Financial Transaction Tax: The Tiny Tax That Generates Billions in Revenue The Financial Transaction Tax3 is an idea that may have originated with Keynes, but it has gotten an enormous boost by the computerization of stock transactions. For, because of computerization, the number of stock transactions occurring globally on all the stock markets has increased astronomically. There are literally millions of stock transactions occurring everyday all across the globe. And, every one of these stock transactions can be easily tracked and taxed. A tiny tax on every stock transaction can produce an enormous amount of revenue!4 Each nation taxes each stock transaction and can raise trillions of dollars with a tiny tax—less than 1% on each stock transaction—usually just 0.01% or less. The individuals engaging in stock trading will hardly notice the tax they are paying, yet millions or more will be made available to their home nation. Only the professional stock traders—the hedge fund managers and other day traders—will feel the tax. There is no doubt that the hedge funds and day traders will make less

1

Gerald Scorce, Tax articles, New York Daily News. Ibid. 3 Ronald M. Glassman and Gerald Scorce, FTT article, New York Daily News. 4 Ibid. 2

78

10

Taxing the Rich

because of their high volume of trades. However, they will still make enough to make such ventures profitable. There is debate over the latter factor, but advocates of the FTT insist that the enormous revenue generated from it is well worth its institutionalization. And, the slight inhibition of hedge fund revenues might also be a good thing, since the hedge funds neither produce anything, nor lead in creative investment. Dean Baker5 has written extensively on the FTT, and I refer the reader to his works. The EU—always ahead in the process of taxing the rich—has already adopted the FTT, and the UK has followed. So, too, has Hong Kong and Singapore. It is the USA which has fallen behind in this process. Not only have we failed to enact the FTT, but the Republican tax bill of 2016—championed by Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Donald Trump, President, and Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader—has given the rich such a tax cut as has never existed since the enactment of the Progressive Income Tax Law. The FTT could raise trillions in revenue without hurting the majority of Americans—rich or middle class—but it will take the election of a Democratic Party presidency, Senate, and House to initiate it.

The Value Added Tax and a Luxury Sales Tax The EU has had a VAT6 for many years. It is a tax on consumer goods—an advanced sales tax. The USA has a sales tax, but the VAT is a much steeper tax. It raises a great deal of revenue, both from the middle class and the rich. However, because it raises the price of consumer goods, it inhibits consumption—especially on expensive items, such as cars and electronics. The Europeans don’t mind this, preferring a slightly more frugal lifestyle. In the USA, however, a high consumption economy is necessary two fuel industrial expansion and technological creativity. These latter help lead the world economy, as America’s capitalist creativity and technological development expand the global capitalist economy—leading all the advanced capitalist economies toward expansion. Given this, the VAT tax in the USA would be unwise. Our low sales tax is enough to produce revenue, without inhibiting consumption. However, having established that the VAT tax would not be acceptable in America, what would be workable is a luxury tax. This would be an added sales tax—something like a VAT tax—but only on very high-priced luxury goods.

5 6

Dean Baker, The FTT in Globalization, Google Books, 2012. Google, The Value Added Tax (VAT) of the EU.

Hidden Bank Accounts

79

Thus, cars priced over $100,000 would be taxed with this luxury tax, watches priced over $5000, diamonds and other jewelry priced over $5000, men’s and women’s clothing priced over $2000 or $3000, and other luxury items, such as furniture, drapes, etc. Billionaires will still buy cars, watches, jewelry, clothing, and home furnishings even with the luxury tax on them. The dealers who sell luxury items will not like this, asserting that it will hurt sales. Billionaires will be strongly opposed to the luxury tax, of course, but it is unlikely that they will be inhibited from buying that Mercedes-Benz or Rolex watch or ten carat diamond. They will balk, but they will buy. And, since nobody needs a $20,000 watch or a Bentley Coop, a luxury tax will be a good thing because it will raise revenue, while still allowing for the luxury goods to be displayed as rewards for gaining billionaire economic success.

Hidden Bank Accounts Gabriel Zucman has written the book that details the many banks around the world that “shelter” money for the global capitalist rich. The list includes the Cayman Islands, Panama, Cyprus, Switzerland and many more banking systems that hide money from the tax collectors of numerous nations. Even Deutsche Bank has been heavily implicated in this process. In this treatise, we wish to emphasize that the world’s capitalist nations must work out a lawful system that limits such activities. In order to be effective, there must be large fines for those millionaires and billionaires who attempt to hide their wealth. Deutsche Bank was heavily fined by the German government. And, the EU has put tremendous pressure on the Swiss banking systems—with some success. Monaco, recently, upon the accession to the throne of the son of the old King, banned its banks from sheltering the money of celebrities and billionaires. Monaco will lose a great deal of revenue because of this change, however, the young king believes that the moral issues outweigh the economic issues. The Cypress banks are laundering the money of Russian oligarchs. They will continue to do so, and, of course, the Russian government will do nothing about it, because Vladimir Putin is in on the scheme. As for the USA, the current Republican party that dominates the Senate has given the billionaires the largest tax cut in USA history and, they will do nothing to prevent the billionaires from hiding their wealth in the Cayman Islands and Panamanian banks. Yet, if the global capitalist system is to function according to the rule of law, and, if the law is to apply equally to all citizens within a capitalist-democratic nation, then all the capitalist-democratic nations must come together and implement a stringent policy of fines and even jail penalties, in order to stop this blatant withholding of tax dollars from the nations involved.

80

10

Taxing the Rich

The example of Monaco should be emulated in Switzerland, and the EU, UK, and USA must create and enforce legally punitive punishments for those rich individuals who hide their wealth and cheat on their taxes. This is essential if democracy is to be maintained over against oligarchic overinfluence. Oligarchy is not the worst form of government, but, it is not democracy. And, when the rich rule, they will rule in their own selfish self-interest. Aristotle said that a form of government in which the rulers rule in their own self-interest, is a “perverted” form of government. I agree. (Aristotle, Politics, Forms of Government).

Conclusions on Oligarchy of the Rich As we have asserted, oligarchy is not the worst form of government—tyranny is. However, oligarchy is worse than democracy. Why? Because, economically the rich take too much of a nation’s wealth to themselves, such that essential economic processes suffer—such as infrastructure modernization and safety net programs. And, politically, the rise of the wealth at the top 10% of a nation’s population is usually accompanied by a decline in wealth amongst the middle-class and the poor. This destabilizes politics—extremes of right wing and left wing movements may emerge. As described, when the rich of a nation draw huge amounts of the national wealth to themselves, they develop an aristocratic lifestyle, while the lifestyle of the rest of the nation declines. Middle-class housing becomes more difficult to attain, a college education becomes too expensive to afford without crippling loan debt. Further, the roads, bridges, electrical grid, railroads, airports, and other infrastructure systems become under-funded and begin to crumble, or function in a subpar fashion. Given the technological revolution, and, the immediacy of climate change problems, the infrastructure must be modernized and adapted to the new climate realities. In the EU, both the infrastructure processes are being implemented. However, in the USA, where oligarchic-over-influence has reached an historical peak, these infrastructure problems are being ignored. The Democratic Party, and the new high tech billionaires, want the infrastructure changes. However, President Trump, the Republican Party and the oil, coal, and gas company billionaires are blocking all progress in this regard. This will continue in the USA until the Republican Party is pushed out of power in the Senate, or, if high tech billionaires, such as Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and others fund the infrastructure modernization projects from their own profits—this could happen. In any society where the rich have the power to create an oligarchy—or oligarchic over-influence within a democratic system—both the lifestyle of the middle class and the poor, and, the economic infrastructure may be neglected. Where the middle-class decline in prosperity and growth, and where the infrastructure

Conclusions on Oligarchy of the Rich

81

disintegrates political extremism will replace political stability—disorder will replace order. Where the rich draw the wealth of a nation to themselves, the political system will be destabilized. For, it is the middle class that destabilizes a capitalist-democratic society. And, where the rich draw huge amounts of wealth to themselves, the middle class and the poor will decline in their prosperity. Yes, Jeremy Bentham, “a rising tide raises all ships.”7 However, if the wealth of a society—even an advanced capitalist society—is so unequally distributed as to enhance the wealth of the rich while degrading the wealth of the middle classes and poor, the results will be political extremism emanating from the downgraded classes. If the middle classes, the working classes and the poor feel their lifestyle and the life chances of their children are declining, they will turn to extremist parties and demagogic leaders to help right what they perceive as a wrong. Now human beings possess a rational and irrational psyche. We can act rationally—vote democratically, debate policy issues, or, we can act irrationally—blame immigrants, Blacks, Jews, or some other scapegoat groups, for our difficulties. And, because of the irrational portion of our being, we humans may follow extremist demagogic leaders, who blame social problems on stigmatized groups. This occurs over and over again in human history. Whenever the stability of the middle class is shaken economically, and where the working class and the poor feel abandoned by the moderate, rationally-oriented political parties, the fascist right and the communist left will emerge and exploit the rage, irrational bigotry, and economic disability of the people in a given nation-state. Oligarchy creates the economic conditions for this political extremism. We are witnessing this process today with the: outsourcing of working-class jobs, the incoming immigrants, and the selfish hoarding of the wealth by the rich. In the EU, the UK, the USA, all these factors have come together, and right wing extremism has emerged frighteningly, while left-wing extremism has also reappeared. We shall discuss all of this in our section on Tyranny. Here we wish to conclude this section on the problems of oligarchy by asserting that oligarchic over-influence is a major problem in all of the capitalist-democratic nations. This problem is most extreme in the USA, but is ballooning in France and Germany as well. Oligarchic over-influence must be contained and rolled back if democracy is to be maintained. The global capitalist rich are needed in that they are creative entrepreneurs, managers and technocrats. However, their wealth creation—embodied in the global capitalist, transnational corporations, must be fairly taxed, such that the advanced capitalist societies can function effectively for all its citizens. Oligarchy is not democracy. It is a “perverted” form of government.8 (Aristotle).

The United States Supreme Court ruled in the “Citizens United” case that unlimited campaign contributions were legal. 8 Aristotle, Politics. 7

82

10

Taxing the Rich

Preventing Oligarchy from Over-Influencing and Over-Riding Democracy Along with taxing the rich in a fair manner for the good of all citizens in a democratic society, limits must be placed on the political influence of the rich—both in electoral campaigns and in the day-to-day functioning of the legislative process.

Campaign Finance Limits The EU and the UK have strict limits on campaign contributions to both candidates and political parties. The influence of the rich was so powerful in Great Britain, with its history of actual, legal oligarchy from 1688 to 1853, that when universal suffrage was finally fully enacted, the working-class and middle-class finally had enough votes to limit the strong oligarchic traditions. Hence, strict limitations on campaign contributions were enacted—and, after World War II, these limits were well enforced. The EU followed the UK example, enacting strict campaign contribution limits as the democracies of France and Germany were reestablished. With the specter of fascism and Nazism hanging over them, and remembering the collaboration of the wealthy industrialists in these movements, the EU established limitations, and, they have been honored by the capitalist rich in the EU nations. In fact, in Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, the corporate rich have been very cooperative in maintaining the welfare state programs passed by the Social Democratic Parties in these countries. Until recently, the riches also cooperated in the progressive taxation policies. But, although avoiding taxation with Swiss and other tax shelter banks, the EU rich have not violated the campaign-finance laws— winning elections with their conservative parties because of the remarkable prosperity of their advanced capitalist enterprises. And then there is the United States. Again, as with progressive taxation, the rich in America—with the help of both Democratic and Republican presidents—have gutted limitations on campaign contributions. The recent Supreme Court decision likening campaign contributions to “free speech,” opened the floodgates to enormous campaign contributions from the rich. (The “Citizens United” Supreme Court Decision).9 The only reason that the American polity has not lost its democratic potential is that many of the new billionaire rich have founded high-tech companies, and, these founders are middle class scientifically oriented innovators. Given this latter phenomenon, many of the new rich are liberal minded on social issues: Gay liberation,

9

Citizens United vs FEC, US Supreme Court Decision, 2010.

Limiting Lobbying

83

racial justice, women’s liberation, environmental degradation, climate change—they are forcefully on the liberal Democratic Party side, in terms of these issues. While, on the Conservative Republican side, the older industrial rich and the oil and natural gas rich tend to be Conservative Republicans. Because there are Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg on one side, and the Koch Brothers on the other side, both parties gain huge amounts of billionaire funding. And further, because the Internet, with its extremist partisan blogs is the new news system, candidates can raise huge amounts of campaign revenue from middle and working-class individuals, whose contributions are small, but whose numbers are large. Thus, not only is democracy threatened by extremist blogs, but it is also sustained by them! Still, one must understand that the influence of the richest Americans is overwhelming in the campaign sphere, and this oligarchic over influence of the electoral process is only mitigated by the contemporary division amongst the rich. If and when the new high tech rich become conservatized by the managerial takeover—which is inevitable after the retirement of the liberal-minded founders—then oligarchy will be unmitigated in America. Therefore, the USA needs campaign-finance reform now. This can happen if a Democratic President, House of Representatives and Senate are elected in 2020. Failing this, the oligarchic over-influence in the American electoral process will continue, even with the Democratic contributions from the millions of citizen bloggers contributing small amounts.

Limiting Lobbying Right now, in the United States, a veritable army of lobbyists takes up residence in Washington, DC. They are largely lawyers hired by big companies and nonprofit organizations to influence Congress. It is their job to present the policy proposals which the big companies and the nonprofit organizations want discussed and passed by the legislature. There is nothing wrong with this system. It has evolved because of the large, continental size of the United States. Influencing the Congress and Senate to take up legislation is not undemocratic—it is lawful and necessary. It is not just Exxon Mobil, but also women’s organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union, conservative and liberal think tanks—such as the Brookings Institution—or organizations representing doctors—such as the American Medical Association. The problem is that the capitalist corporations have so much more money to spend on lobbyists—so much more, that lobbying has become an oligarchic problem. If the corporations want something, the Congress passes it; if they do not want something, the Congress either blocks it, or never even takes it up. Climate change is the issue that shows the problem best.

84

10

Taxing the Rich

In the EU and Scandinavia, where lobbying by big companies is limited, enormous strides have been taken to employ and develop alternative energy programs: wind fields abound in the north Atlantic, solar panels are everywhere, thermal heating is expanding, electric cars are being built, and nuclear power plants are being deployed in a more modern—and hopefully—safer way. In the USA, where oil and gas companies have lobbyists who fund congressional campaigns, the Congress has failed to act. We have wind and solar power, but natural gas, and even coal, are still being used extensively. We could all die and our coasts are being threatened with higher and higher tides—California is burning— and still the big companies are lobbying enough congressmen and senators to prevent action on climate change. College student loans are another example of oligarchic lobbying. The banks and financial firms holding a trillion dollars of student debt have lobbied sufficiently to prevent a sensible rational program of debt forgiveness to be developed and implemented. The best of such programs include not only debt forgiveness for the students currently paying, but also tax credits for those who have already paid off their loans. And a program of reimbursement for the banks and financial institutions which hold the loans, would also be included. Very complete—and conservative-backed—programs have been developed. But the lobbyists for the big banks have blocked Congress from acting. Failure to act on the student debt crisis will have the effect of weakening the next generation of the middle class, and thus destabilizing democracy. These are only two examples of the oligarchic problem inherent in rampant, unlimited lobbying. As with campaign-finance limits, the legal limitation of lobbying must be discussed, planned, and implemented. The American people know that lobbying unfairly influences the Congress and they see it as “corruption” in Washington, DC. Nonprofit organizations will not be affected because they do not have enough money for a limitation law to negatively affect them. The future of democracy depends on some programs of limitations of lobbying activities. Lobbying will be allowed, but better regulated to create a more level playing field and prevent the oligarchic over-influence by giant corporate firms.

Part II

The Poor Against Democracy

Chapter 11

Aristotle on the Problem of a Majority Poor

Aristotle called a democracy in which the poor were in the majority, an “extreme democracy.” He opposed this to a democracy in which the middle class were in the majority, which he called, “a polity,” or, a “mixed polity.” He called the middle class democracy a mixed polity because, where the middle class were in the majority, they included the rich and the poor in the decision-making process.1 Here, in this section of this treatise, we wish to emphasize Aristotle’s warning about democracy of the poor. Aristotle warned that where the poor are in the majority and gain a controlling interest in the voting process, “the democracy will be speedily ruined.”2 Why? Because the poor will vote to confiscate the wealth of the rich and redistributed it to themselves. The problem in this—aside from generating a counter-revolution by the rich—is that the poor do not know how to run the economy, and will destabilize it. Aristotle warned further, that simply “giving money to the poor, is like pouring water into a leaky jar.” For once the poor use up the money, they will come back for more.3 Aristotle, however, was sympathetic to the poor: he wanted to raise them up to middle-class status. How to do this? Attach the poor either to a craft workshop or a cash crop farming estate. Train the poor in crafts or farming so that they will gain steady employment, attain a career and enough money to raise them to middle-class status. This will expand the economy and stabilize it, while just giving money to the poor, would destabilize the economy and “speedily ruin a democracy.”4 Worse yet, according to Aristotle, the poor often turn to the demagogues who promise them everything, but rule selfishly. And, still worse, the poor will back

1

Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 2

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_11

87

88

11

Aristotle on the Problem of a Majority Poor

tyrants, who utilize money to buy their support and then turn on them, using violence to stay in power. So, a majority poor can destroy democracy and lead it to tyranny. Aristotle’s characterization of the rich, the poor, and the middle class still holds relevance in the modern world. I have written many books on this topic.5 His warning about a majority poor “speedily ruining a democracy” is still very much relevant—especially in the developing nations. Let us look at some modern cases where democracy is being ruined by the majority poor taking control of parliamentary elections.

The Case of Venezuela Venezuela is a case study that, sadly, confirms Aristotle’s theory. In the 1940s and 1950s, Venezuela—like much of Latin America, was governed by a military dictator—in this case, so violent that he was called “The Butcher of the Andes.” Again, as with most Latin American nations, a class of wealthy Spaniards dominated the society, while the mixed race middle class was small, and the Native American poor lived in isolated villages not yet absorbed into the emerging modern society. The rich Spaniards were called “La Oligarchia,” but they were not just a wealth oligarchy, they were feudal aristocrats left over from the days of the Conquistadors.6 Then, oil was discovered in Venezuela—an enormous amount of oil. The United States moved into Venezuela in a big way. Our oil companies moved in to drill for and refine the oil; our shipping industry built ports for oil export. And, our State Department, CIA, and presidency pressured the Venezuelan “oligarchia” to overthrow the dictator and establish a democratic government. With the oil flowing and Venezuela getting a share of the seemingly unlimited oil wealth, the dictator was overthrown, and a democratic government was established. Though the aristocratic oligarchs at first controlled the government, the oil wealth created a modern infrastructure: electrification, roads, bridges, modern buildings in Caracas, the capital, and in the smaller cities. This new modernization process created middle-class jobs, and therefore, the middle class—mostly mixed race (“mestizo”) grew rapidly.

5

Ronald M. Glassman, The Middle Class and Democracy in Global Perspective, NY, Greenwood Press, 1982; The Middle Class and Democracy in Socio-Historical Perspective, Brill, The Netherlands, 1985; For Democracy, with William Swatos, Jr., Greenwood Press, 1988; Democracy and Equality, NY, Praeger, 1986. 6 Ronald M. Glassman, The Political History of Latin America, NY, Funk & Wagnalls, 1969.

The Case of Venezuela

89

By the 1960s, the middle class was large enough to elect Romulus Bettencourt as president, and also a liberal government not controlled by the old “oligarchia.”7 Bettencourt pledged to use the oil money to create a modern education system, hospitals, and other social services. He kept his promise, and this resulted in a further expansion of the middle class. Venezuela then joined OPEC, the international oil cartel.8 This helped Venezuela garner even more wealth from their huge oil reserves. From the 1960s to the 1990s, Venezuela was a model of democratic stability. Its government was much less corrupt than other Latin American governments, its middle-class was moderate and becoming better educated, and the aristocratic rich were getting richer, so they were satisfied to let the middle class democracy function smoothly. The rapid modernization, along with the search in the countryside for new oil sources, began to attract the Native American poor from their remote villages to the expanding, modernizing cities—especially Caracas. These rural poor began accumulating in the cities as an urban poor. They were uneducated—some spoke Spanish as a second language, speaking their native tongues at home. They were also unskilled. However, their neighborhoods were not hideous “barrios” like those of Brazil. And, they were not crime infested either. Still, the people were poor, and they had no way of gaining middle-class careers. They were pretty much ignored by the middle class, who were just gaining their own stability in Venezuela. For a long time, the poor did not even bother to vote. So, the middle class stabilized the democracy. And, being liberal minded, the government did begin to recognize that the poor needed help—they needed education and job training, along with social services, such as healthcare. The Venezuelan government did not act fast enough—they did not perceive the situation of the poor as an immediate crisis. Enter Hugo Chávez.9 A Native American leader—a charismatic demagogue—he began to organize the poor. He promised them immediate relief—money—and social services—hospitals and schools. He organized them into a solid voting bloc. And, once they became a majority, he began to win elections. Chávez, however, did exactly what Aristotle warned not to do: he gave the poor money, and was careful to distribute it fairly. The poor loved it, and loved him. But, if you give the poor money, it is like “pouring water into a leaky jar.” Chávez kept having to give more money to the poor, and as he did so, he began depleting the money from the oil economy, and diverting it away from infrastructure, corporate expansion, food supply, trade goods.

7

Rómulo Betancourt was the President of Venezuela who helped build the oil-based economy. Google, “OPEC.” 9 Hugo Chavez was the President of Venezuela who organized the poor and linked up with Cuban Communism. 8

90

11

Aristotle on the Problem of a Majority Poor

The result was the collapse of the Venezuelan economy. The richest country in Latin America suddenly went broke. As goods became scarce, inflation soared. Worse, Chávez, seeing the capitalist economy collapsing, and fearing military intervention against him by the USA, went to Cuba. There he was encouraged to communize the economy—have the state take over the oil economy and redistribute the wealth to the poor. Before the communist program could be instituted, Hugo Chávez died—he had cancer and could not be saved. With Chávez dead, the middle classes and the rich tried to retake the government. They held elections, and came very close to winning. But, Chávez’s successor Nicholás Maduro, won by a tiny margin.10 Maduro is not charismatic and he can promise very little with the economy in shambles. He therefore use what money he had to buy off the Venezuelan military, and, to appoint a whole new military unit from amongst the very poor. Using this newly created military power, he made himself dictator—rigging elections and brutalizing the opposition. Maduro, however, has no clue as to how to re-energize the economy. Therefore, the middle class parties joined together and chose a leader, _____,11 and simply declared him the president. The USA backed him immediately. But Madero refuses to go away. With the USA and its oil companies backing the middle-class candidate, Maduro received backing from Vladimir Putin and the Russians. They are funding him and helping him stay in power. The Chinese, who have built new port facilities in Venezuela, and who want and need Venezuela’s oil, are also backing Maduro. This is a mistake for China, which would get its oil by joining with the USA, but Xi is feuding with Donald Trump in a trade war, and so he backs Putin. The Russians need no oil, they just want political control, and they want to weaken America’s hegemony in South America. So, what will be the future in Venezuela? The economy is slowly improving. Goods and services are beginning to flow. The middle class and rich are united in their attempt to overthrow an exile Maduro. Maduro still has control over the military—he is paying them well. But he— Maduro—is becoming marginalized because he cannot run the economy. There is hope, therefore, that Venezuela’s middle-class democracy will eventually return, and, that schooling and job training for the poor will be included in their economic rehabilitation programs. Finally, American policy has been inconsistent on Venezuela, with President Trump reticent to oppose Putin and Russia. Barack Obama was inconsistent as well, because he did not approve of invading Venezuela. There is no doubt, that Venezuela’s middle-class democracy will need American help in order to re-stabilize politically and economically.

10 11

Nicolás Madero is Chavez’s successor. It is not clear in 2020 who will be the new candidate.

A Note on India

91

In conclusion, we wish to assert that no one—least of all the Venezuelans— thought that the poor would be a threat to Venezuelan democracy. These events in Venezuela serve as a warning that in a democratic system a demagogue can organize the poor into a majority voting bloc, and, this could “speedily ruin” a democracy, as Aristotle warned.

A Note on India Having been a British colony for over a century, the Indian middle class, though small at first, was fully committed to law and democracy as their favored form of government. And, though the middle class was small, the poor were dispersed widely in the countryside in rural, isolated villages. The emerging upper class—both traditional Hindu, Brahmans and the new commercial and business rich—were fully identified with British political norms and values. As a priestly, intellectual upper-class, the Brahmans moved seamlessly to becoming a British educated upper-class, with Hinduism becoming submerged in the more rational minded British “gentry” approach to the world. The business rich joined in this British gentry ideology of law, democracy, natural science, and moderate religion. The middle class dramatically grew between the 1960s and 2000. The Indian middle class is huge now, and, it is relatively prosperous, linked into the growing capitalist economy, rational scientific in its worldview, and fully supportive of Indian parliamentary democracy. What about the poor? This section of this treatise is focused on the poor and their potentially destabilizing effect on any democracy. The Indian poor, as described, were largely isolated in countryside villages. The Indian poor were also quite passive in their approach to life. They were at the bottom of the Hindu caste system, just above the “untouchables.”12 Recently, however, (2016 onward), millions of the poor have accumulated in the Indian cities, living in wretched slums—and as tourists marvel, often accompanied by their animals. In Hinduism, the animals have a soul, and therefore they are part of the “cycle of life and death—the transmigration of the soul.” So the poor live wretchedly—begging, hawking cheap goods, barely above starvation and clinging to their village animals, as no other poor has done—and they cling to Hindu ideology. Poor as they are, they had never been a political factor until Modi, the new Prime Minister, organized them into his Hindu Nationalist party.13 Modi has channeled the angst of anger of the poor into Hindu revivalist politics. They have always been

12 13

Max Weber, The Religion of India, NY Free Press, 1955. Narendra Modi has organized the poor into a Hindu Nationalist Party.

92

11

Aristotle on the Problem of a Majority Poor

Hindu, but Modi, has made them into militant Hindus—channeling their anger into anti-Muslim, anti-Pakistani, anti-Kashmiri rage. Modi wins elections with the support of the newly organized poor. He has invaded India–Kashmir and is encouraging Hindus to move in, so that the Muslim majority in Kashmir will eventually be defeated in elections. The middle class, which at first supported Modi, is now nervous about him. They admire his Hinduism, but fear the militancy of his Hindu nationalism. We mention all this here in this section of this treatise because for the first time the poor of India have become a threat to democracy. Modi has been very aggressive in his Kashmir policy, and has begun to assert other nationalist aims. His Hindu nationalist party is able to defeat the old moderate party of Nehru and Indira Gandhi. Will Modi attempt to become an “illiberal” tyrant? Or, will the expanding middleclass produce a rival candidate who can defeat Modi? The world is now watching India as, for the first time since independence from Britain, the poor have become a factor in Indian politics, and Hinduism has become politicized and radicalized in a new way. The poor could “ruin” India’s democracy, as it ruined Venezuela’s. However, right now, in the year 2020, it is more likely that the middle class and its more moderate, more lawful, more democratic politics will prevail. Why? Because the Indian middle class is becoming rapidly absorbed in the global capitalist economy. And, in order to succeed in this economy, the Indian middle class is increasing its educational skills. The Indians are excellent at mathematics—this goes back to their traditional culture—“Arabic numerals”—after all, are actually “Indian numerals”—science, computer technology, and entrepreneurial business activities are all expanding. This well-educated, high-tech middle-class is growing at an astonishing rate— even immigrating back and forth between Silicon Valley, California and Mumbai, India. The Indian economy cannot survive without this middle-class, and Modi knows it. So, even though Modi has organized the poor and generated a new Hindu nationalism, he is careful not to disturb the expanding high-tech economy. Therefore, though Modi could become like the Eastern European “illiberal” tyrants, he probably will not overstep the constitutional limitations on his power. He will be a forceful prime minister, encouraging nationalistic violence, but probably not a true tyrant.

Chapter 12

Africa and the Traditional Poor

In Sub-Saharan Africa, there are nations which have modernized sufficiently so as to have produced relatively stable governments. Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Burundi, Uganda and of course, South Africa have developed modern economies linked into global capitalism through raw materials production or cash crop exports. These nations, though they are still “developing nations,” have built enough of a modern infrastructure to begin exhibiting a modern class structure. Nations like Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa have good roads, electricity, schools, high-rise office buildings, and glittering shopping malls. At least in and around the cities, they exhibit a growing, prosperous, educated middle-class, and a wealthy, small upper class. The poor, as in so many developing nations, are dispersed in rural villages, where traditional lifestyles sustain them. Where traditional agriculture and crafts are abundant, these poor are not so poor as to cause a political crisis. Therefore, in Kenya, Nigeria, and Ghana, for instance, the rural villagers are slowly being absorbed into the urban modernized sector of society.

Tribalism and Islamic Terrorism Impede Democracy In Kenya, Nigeria, and Ghana, it is not the poor who destabilize the democracy. It is tribal and religious splits which could ruin these countries in their attempt to maintain a stable democratic government. Kenya has two difficult tribes. Neither accepts the electoral victory of the other as legitimate. Neither has a definite majority. So far, with British help politically, and American help economically, the tribal strife has been held in check. Also, fear of the Islamic radical terror attacks from the north of Kenya has served to have the Kenyan tribes put aside their antagonism. Further, the excellent economic growth of Kenya in and around Nairobi, the capital, has engendered incentive not to destabilize the government. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_12

93

94

12

Africa and the Traditional Poor

Will tribal identity eventually give way to a broader Kenyan national identity? It is hard to predict—look at Scotland—it has been part of England for centuries, but still the Scot’s want to split off. And, worse, look at Croatia and Serbia—no Yugoslavian national identity was accepted, and, they murdered each other ruthlessly, even while exhibiting a largely modernized economy and polity. Yugoslavia was held together by a communist dictatorship. When it fell, the “tribes” split up. So too did Slovakia split from the Czech republic. So, Kenya? It may hold together, and, the poor are not the problem. The problem is “tribalism.” The worst case of tribalism in Africa was, of course, in Rwanda-Burundi. There the Tutsi had ruled for centuries, but they were in the minority to the Hutu. In a genocidal uprising, the Hutu tried to eradicate the Tutsi. However, now that the horror is over, and with the Tutsi still surviving, there has been a “healing”—the two peoples are attempting to live together. And, miraculously, Burundi, is an economic and political success, with Rwanda rapidly following. So, the case of Rwanda-Burundi shows that tribes can live together and forge a national identity. The case of Yugoslavia, however, remains as a warning that sometimes tribes cannot live together. In Kenya—and Mozambique—tribal wars have given way to the peaceful truces. In the Sudan, tribal violence still continues. In Nigeria, the problem is both tribal and religious. The split between Islam and Christianity, right now, is the key factor. The Muslims dominated Nigeria for centuries. But when the British took over, they favored the coastal peoples, they converted them to Christianity, made them the dominant group, built a capital city on the coast, and educated the coastal elite. When the British left, a civil war erupted between the coastal Christians and the interior Muslims. The Muslims outnumbered the Christians and won. They moved the capital to the interior and established the government center there. Oil was discovered in the interior, and this gave the Muslims a tremendous advantage. The new capital city became richer than Lagos, the old coastal capital. The Muslim elites gained a huge source of wealth. Corruption from the oil money is rampant. So, the coastal Christians are not happy. However, the port of Lagos is booming—not only from oil exports, but from cash crop exports and other vital raw materials. Nigeria is rich, and the Christians are being absorbed into the economic prosperity. The Muslim-Christian split is still simmering, and the corruption in government has not been checked. Therefore, the rich are getting richer, and, they are not sharing with the rest of the Nigerian people. What has stabilized the Nigerian government is the fact that a middle class is rapidly growing in the cities. This new middle class is increasingly well-educated and prosperous—and, they are both Christian and Muslim. This new middle class decries the corruption, but supports the government, trying to reform it. And, in Nigeria, the poor are being absorbed into the oil, mining, and cash crop export economy fast enough so that they—the Nigerian poor—have not accumulated in the Nigerian cities as a dangerous lumpen poor.

The Traditional Rural Poor in Africa

95

Poor men, along with being recruited into the oil, mining, and cash crop economy, are also recruited into the military. But in Nigeria, the military have been closely controlled by the Muslim elite who run the government. They have not been used to repress their own people, and, are not very well organized. They were not able for example, to capture and arrest the ISIS inspired radicals in the north of Nigeria. So, in Nigeria, the poor are not the problem. Religious and tribal divisions create tension in Nigeria, and government corruption is the major political problem. American and European oil companies have tried to work with the Nigerians to reduce corruption. But so far they have not been very successful.

The Traditional Rural Poor in Africa As in Central America, there are nations in Africa where the modernization of the economy, education, system and the polity have barely begun. In the various Congo republics, and Zimbabwe, Mozambique, the landlocked Saharan nations, some of the ex-French coastal nations, and those nations peripheral to South Africa, most of the population live in rural villages, tilling the soil and making craft goods as they did before the colonial European intrusion. These traditional rural populations cannot be considered as “the poor” in a modern sense. There is no modern class structure. The middle class has not yet emerged, cities are small, roads barely connect the rural villages to anything, education is just being instituted. The local kings and priests were destroyed by the colonial invasions, and the new elite are opportunists or military leaders who gained power as the colonial powers left. Essentially, the bulk of the people live in rural villages, and there is anarchy in terms of the nations at large. The anarchic void is filled by local and regional strongmen—petty, but violent, military leaders, who lead private armies, funded by trading raw materials—like diamonds—for guns. Hence the term “blood diamonds.” But, it could be “blood rubber” or “blood coffee” or “blood cocoa,” etc. Whereas there is anarchy, and young men are let loose as paramilitary “gangs,” there will be violence, there will be atrocities, there will be rape, there will be child abuse. All of this is happening in the central African region. This description should not be taken as racist in any way. Look at what the Nazis did; look at the drug cartels in Columbia and Mexico; look at what the Vikings did as they attacked Europe in the Middle Ages; and, Genghis Khan was noted for his hideous atrocities. In Central Africa, young men living in traditional villages with no hope for upward mobility and no modern society, as yet, follow charismatic war leaders and small gangs, and, terrorized the rural populations. Again, as in Central America, and in more of the Middle East than Americans understood (including Afghanistan), non-modern, “traditional” village and tribal

96

12

Africa and the Traditional Poor

lifestyles, combined with the ability of paramilitary leaders to buy modern weaponry, engenders anarchy and senseless military violence, along with hideous atrocities. Where there is an ideological movement—like Islamist militancy—the situation gets worse. As the developing nations develop cities, roads, electricity, schools, shopping centers, and more modern societal structures, central governments will emerge that can stop the anarchic violence. Right now, one cannot even term these governments as “tyrannies” because they do not exert much control over the still disjointed traditional village countryside. In nations like Mozambique—a former Portuguese colony—where most of the people live along the coast, or in Zimbabwe, where most of the country is open plains and open farmland, a central government can be easily established. Unfortunately, in Central Africa, because of the dense jungle and network of swampy rivers, it is very difficult to create a unified road system or connect the villages to the cities. The nations of Central Africa are rich in resources, but face a daunting task in creating a unified national government with any reach into the countryside. And the horrifying brutality of the Belgian King’s colonial regime1 left a legacy of misery and violence, instead of the usual colonial mix of exploitation plus modernization. The former Belgian Congo and its surrounding region is still ostensibly in a state of anarchy and economic underdevelopment. To conclude: where a whole nation is poor, the establishment of any kind of a stable government is difficult, and, the establishment of a stable democracy is almost impossible.

1 King Leopold of Belgium was the worst of the colonialists from Europe. His statue has been removed from Belgium (2020).

Chapter 13

The Middle East: The Sunni-Shia Split; Radical Islam; Tribalism; and Oil

The Modern Sectors of the Cities Versus the Traditional Majority Population Many Western observers were fooled by the Middle East. They believed it was more modern than it was. The reason for this is that the cities are relatively modern. Beirut, Damascus, Aleppo, Baghdad, Teheran, and even Cairo, are bustling with cars, buses, shopping malls, tall buildings, and markets. Everyone has a cell phone; the internet is ubiquitous, and the middle class is growing in these cities. This new middle class of Arabic-speaking Middle Easterners also excel at the modern professions: doctors abound, hospitals are good, teachers and professors are excellent and intellectually productive. A very successful and modernist middle class was thriving. Further, the Arab Emeritus are glistening explosions of modernity at the edge of the desert and along the Persian Gulf. What the observers miss is that the majority of the population—even in the cities—is not modern. They are engaged in traditional small businesses and shop keeping—as they have been for centuries. Because of the desert surroundings of the Middle Eastern cities, and the good crop yields along the great rivers—the Nile, the Tigris, the Euphrates—the majority of the traditional population gathered in the cities as craftsmen and shopkeepers, selling food, spices, clothing, leather goods, metal goods, pottery, art works, and other traditional goods. These traditional city classes are not university educated—they can read and write and do business calculations—they bargain as they did in days of old, and they sell non-modern traditional craft goods, spices, and foods. As should be expected, these urban and village traditional “middle-class” populations are religious, and Islam is very important to them. The mosques and the imams engage in charity work, and the traditional population approves heartily of this and participates in the charity programs. Islam is deeply rooted in the families of these small business and small farmer traditional classes. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_13

97

98

13

The Middle East: The Sunni-Shia Split; Radical Islam; Tribalism; and Oil

The Muslim Brotherhood,1 a moderate Islamic movement and political party, is favored by the traditional urban and rural classes. They do not support the more radical Islamic movements of ISIS and Al Qaeda—however, young men always find militaristic militant movements exciting.

Egypt and “The Arab Spring” Cairo is typical of the Middle Eastern cities—it is bustling with cars—so many that there are traffic jams—yet, it has no traffic lights. Tourist groups have to be carefully crossed by trained guides, or one cannot cross the street. Dominated by an American trained military dictatorship, since Nasser2 was overthrown, the Egyptians gathered in the main square of Cairo to demand democracy. The “Arab Spring”3 idea of Barack Obama had borne fruit in Tunisia, and now the Egyptians wanted democracy. Nasser’s communism—though admired for the construction of the Aswan Dam (with Russian support)—did not catch on with the traditional Muslim population. No Communist Party transcended Nasser’s charisma. In fact, no political parties of any kind existed in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood did exist, and as mentioned, the traditional population was very sympathetic to it. When Murbarak’s4 military dictatorship was overthrown, the majority of the traditional population voted for the Muslim Brotherhood. However, they were not a modern political party. They had no political or economic program. The only program they had was that of Islamic Law. So, once in power, they voted by majority in the newly formed Parliament to institute strict Sharia Law—the laws of the Koran. Women’s rights were attacked; men’s rights were restricted; no program of economic modernization was put forth; the tourist industry—Egypt’s major industry—was put in jeopardy. The traditional urban and rural populations—not poor, but not modern—had voted overwhelmingly for the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, they were sorry. They wanted them removed from office. The USA intervened and encouraged the military to arrest the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and, take political control again. Egypt is now a military dictatorship again, and the young military leaders are more repressive then Murbarak—though under American pressure, they have lightened their grip.

1

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Google. Gamal Abdul Nasser was the Egyptian Dictator who tried to create a communist economy and an Arab-nationalist movement. 3 Barack Obama, in a presidential speech, called for an “Arab Spring”—a democracy movement in the Middle East. 4 Hosni Mubarak was the military dictator of Egypt as the Arab Spring demonstrations unfolded. 2

The Sunni-Shia Split

99

The traditional population of Egypt is glad to have the Muslim Brotherhood out of power. They still favor the mosques, but socially, not politically. A new middle class of professional and white-collar workers is emerging in Egypt—in Cairo and Alexandria. They will eventually form the base for modern political parties. Right now, the traditional population outnumbers them greatly. Since tourism is still Egypt’s major industry, the traditional population will not be poor—they sell to tourists, and, shepherd tourists around—and they do not favor radical Islamic terrorist movements—because terrorists kill tourists and ruin the economy. There can be a slow transition to democracy in Egypt, as the economy grows and the new middle class expands with it. For now, the military dictators are under American influence and are not overly repressive.

Syria and Iraq: Religious and Ethnic Divisions Impede Nation-Building When we come to Syria and Iraq, however, we come to something quite different. The cities of Syria and Iraq are similar to Cairo—crowded with traditional shops, antiquities, museums, and modern buildings, cars, and modern shopping areas. Unlike Egypt, Syria and Iraq have a tradition of military conquest and repressive violence going back for centuries. More importantly, Syria and Iraq are fatally divided by the Sunni-Shia Islamic sectarian split, and tribal differences.

The Sunni-Shia Split Islam, in its earliest phase, developed a disagreement over succession to the Caliphate. The Shiites favored Mohammed Ali and the Sunnis favored a different relative of Mohammed. There was no theological difference between them.5 Over the centuries, however, the Sunnis became the dominant Islamic sect everywhere except in Persia. The Persians became Shiites, and, they developed a theological hierarchy not exhibited by the Sunni Muslims. The Sunnis, as with diaspora Judaism, honored learned men steeped in Islamic wisdom—Imams. The Imams, like Judaic Rabbis, had great authority, but no actual power. And like the rabbis, they were not organized into a church hierarchy. The Caliphs—the Kings—were both head of the mosques and general of the Army.6

5 The Sunni-Shia split occurred centuries ago when Muhammad Ali was challenged by another successor of Mohammad. 6 The Arab Caliphate combined the Kingship and the High Priest position.

100

13

The Middle East: The Sunni-Shia Split; Radical Islam; Tribalism; and Oil

Among the Persians, who had had a very organized and powerful priesthood in the centuries before Islam—the Magi priests of the Zoroastrian7 Religion—the religion of heaven and hell, the God of good and the God of evil, and the apocalyptic battle that would end the world—organize the Islamic priests into a Magi-like hierarchy. In the Persian version of Shiite Islam, there was a hierarchy of priests called “Ayatollahs.”8 The Ayatollahs were headed by a high priest—the supreme Ayatollah—and a College of Ayatollah advisors. This was similar, of course, to the Roman catholic hierarchy, but actually more similar to the Greek Orthodox hierarchy with which the Persians were more familiar. Arabic culture remained tribal whereas Persian culture had had a divine king and a government bureaucracy for centuries.9 The Persia Shia hierarchy of Ayatollahs reflected thus more organized system, while the Arabic Sunni Islam reflected the less bureaucratized system of the Arabic Caliphate. The Sunni-Shia split was not important during the long Turkish domination of the Middle East. However, when the Turks withdrew under British pressure, the old split became important again. In both Syria and Iraq, Sunni and Shia factions formed against one another for political control.

Syria: The Assad Dictatorship and the Shia (Alawite) Repression of the Sunnis In Syria, led by the dictator Hafez al-Assad, the Shiite faction called “Alowites,” joined with the Christian minority, and formed a repressive military tyranny over the Sunni majority.10 Gaining military weaponry from both the USA and Russia, Assad maintained his violent control over the Sunnis. When Hafez al-Assad died, his son, Bashar al-Assad took over. Bashar was educated in England,11 and the Sunnis thought that he might be open to holding democratic elections. With American encouragement, the Sunnis demonstrated in Damascus and Aleppo and Antioch, for democratic elections. They knew they were in the majority, and could win such an election. However, Bashar al-Assad knew that as well.

7

Zoroaster founded a Persian religion with a dualistic system: a god of good and a god of evil— heaven and hell, the apocalyptic end of the world. 8 Persia had a hierarchical church headed by the Ayatollahs. 9 The Persian monarchy, priestly bureaucracy, and secular bureaucracy were very well organized. 10 In Syria, Assad, and now his son, have been dictators, linked with the Alawite Muslims, who are Shia. 11 Bashar al-Assad has an Oxford education, but it has not made him democratic or humanistic.

Syria: The Assad Dictatorship and the Shia (Alawite) Repression of the Sunnis

101

Rather than give up control—and his British education be damned—he set his army of loyal Shiites and Christians against the Sunnis in a massive and horrific repression. The USA wavered in its support for the Sunni majority, because, mixed in with the modernist Sunni political parties were parties representing Al Qaeda and ISIS— the most radical Islamicist movements—and both virulently anti-American. When Assad used poison gas against the Sunnis, Hillary Clinton said, “Invade, back the Sunnis.” But Barack Obama hesitated—he had seen what happened in Iraq when the USA invaded—Iraq broke apart, and has not yet been put back together. Therefore, the USA did not invade, did not help the Sunnis, and allowed Assad to continue his repression. Assad, however, might have been defeated by the Sunni majority without further American aid. But, Assad invited the Russians in to support his military operations. Vladimir Putin did not hesitate. Russia had a small military base on the Mediterranean Sea in Syria. He wanted a stronger presence in Syria and the Middle East. This was Russia’s chance to improve its geopolitical position in the Middle East. With massive Russian military support, Assad defeated the Sunnis in the Syrian Civil War. And, Putin got a double-barreled success. One, the Russians now control Syria, ruling through Assad. And, millions of Sunni Syrians fled into Turkey, then across to Greece, and into France, Germany, and England. Passing through Slavic and Hungarian Eastern Europe from Greece, these Syrian immigrants set off the right wing neo-fascist, nationalist movements that have destabilized Europe. Putin loves it. He gained a base in the Middle East, and, destabilized NATO at the same time. A double success. President Trump, going against years of American foreign policy, has encouraged Russian control over Syria, and attempted to destabilize NATO as well. History will judge President Trump, but will the American voters? The American voters are absorbed in their own immigrant crisis from Central America, and, a last ditch effort to save Protestant Christian social values from the dramatic changes of the black movement, the women’s movement, and the gay movement. The American voters are not looking at foreign policy—they are fed up with America’s interventionist wars. They don’t care about Russian advances in the Middle East or Europe. However, the Democratic Party cares, so there has been an impeachment12 (but without a conviction). To return to Syria. Assad has won the Civil War with powerful Russian support. Millions of Sunnis have fled. Assad and the Shiites and Christians will remain in power. No democracy will emerge under these conditions. However, the Sunnis will slowly return. Turkey is facilitating this return, and, the Europeans want the Syrians to go back—they can’t absorb so many into the industrial system—they can absorb some, but most will have to return.

12

President Donald J. Trump has been impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, January 26, 2020. He was not convicted by the U.S. Senate. Trump was impeached again, January 13, 2021, and not convicted again.

102

13

The Middle East: The Sunni-Shia Split; Radical Islam; Tribalism; and Oil

Aleppo, Antioch, and parts of Damascus Will be rebuilt. Will the Sunni return generate another Civil War? Probably not. The Sunnis will resign themselves to a long-term hope for a time of a rebuilt, prosperous Syria, and, a possible election without either Assad or Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Iraq: American Invasion, Shia Versus Sunni, Arabs Versus Kurds Iraq has the longest history of any civilized nation in the world. Its history goes all the way back to Sumer—the first civilization in the world—predating Egypt. Writing was invented in Sumer, banking was invented in Sumer, the first court system occurred there—and so much more.13 The Epic of Gilgamesh was written first in Sumarian.14 Great Kings, such as Hammurabi and Urukagina wrote the first grand law codes15 and Babylon emerged as the greatest city of the ancient world.16 Nebuchadnezzar was one of the world’s first conquering Kings—the King who destroyed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and carried the Jews into the “Babylonian captivity.”17 Finally, the Arabic Golden Age18 had its capital at Baghdad—across the river from ancient Babylon—and from its “House of Wisdom” a great library of Greek Classics was translated into Arabic and disseminated to the Arabic speaking world. Without the great scholars of Baghdad, there would have been no Italian Renaissance. However, after the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols, and the subsequent backlash against “Greek Science,” Iraq drifted backwards into a semi-feudal degeneration. High culture declined, and a localized traditional village and tribal culture with various local “Kings” emerged. Then, in the late nineteenth century, the British discovered oil.

Oil The discovery of oil put Iraq back on the map. Suddenly, the Middle East was of interest again—not as an antiquity treasure, but as an oil producer. The British drove the Turks out of the Middle East, and rather amateurishly redrew the boundaries of 13

Kramer, Samual Noah. Histosry Begins at Sumer. NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1959. The Epic of Gilgamesh. 15 Hammurabi’s Law Code. 16 Kramer, Samuel Noah. History Begins at Sumer. NY: Doubleday, Anchor, 1959. 17 The Bible. The Book of Ezra. 18 See the works of Avaroees, his commentaries on Aristotle. 14

Oil

103

the “fertile crescent” creating new nations with new names. Syria was still Syria, but Jordan was created anew, and Iraq was roughly created between Syria and Persia. Persia was, of course, renamed Iran, but its boundaries were not problematical. The entity called Iraq, however, definitely has been problematical. Iraq includes part of what was once a Kurdish region. The Kurds still occupy northern Iraq. These Kurds are an Iranian people who do not identify as Iraqis—they speak a Persian language and have their own customs, quite different from the Arabic speaking Iraqis. The Kurds want their own country, and live quite separately from their Arabic-speaking neighbors to the South. Worse, Baghdad the capital of Iraq, was control for centuries by the Sunni Arabs. The Baghdad caliphate was always Sunni. The Shia, though in a slight numerical majority, never held power in Baghdad. They did, however, hold local power in the south and east of what is now called Iraq. After a period of Arab nationalism wherein the Ba’ath Party dominated Iraq— with a Sunni military junta—Saddam Hussein became dictator. Saddam Hussein sought to unify Iraq by force. He attacked the Kurds—even use poison gas against them—and brought them under his control. Then he repressed the Shia violently as well. He did unite the country, even excavating ancient Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar’s Palace. Unfortunately, because of America’s loss of control over Iran—Persia—the USA armed Saddam Hussein and instigated a war against Iran. It was a terrible war for both sides—loss of life was in the hundreds of thousands. The war ended in a stalemate, but Saddam Hussein became emboldened by the USA support and the enormous expansion of his military strength. He invaded Kuwait, and the “Desert Storm” Wars began. George H.W. Bush was smart enough to push the Iraqi forces back into Iraq, but not invade Iraq. George W. Bush was not so smart. Colin Powell, the United States General said, “If you break it, you own it.” Well, George W. Bush broke Iraq, and now, we own it. With Saddam Hussein dead, Iraq broke up into its three parts: The Kurds broke away, the Shia won a democratic election and formed the first Shia government in Iraq’s history, and, the Sunni Retreated into the worst Islamic terror organization in all of the Middle East—ISIS. A horrific Civil War ripped Iraq apart. The Americans and Kurds eventually defeated ISIS, but Sunnis have no representation now in the Baghdad government. The Kurds still want independence though the Turks are actively inhibiting this. And, the Shia are aligned with Persia against the USA and yet still negotiating with the USA. Anarchy exists in much of Iraq—is it even a nation-state? Can the Sunnis be reintegrated into the Baghdad regime? Iraq still has oil, so it could regenerate economically. However, the US broke it, and so far, it cannot be put back together.

104

13

The Middle East: The Sunni-Shia Split; Radical Islam; Tribalism; and Oil

Democracy does exist among the Shia, such that the Baghdad government does hold fair elections. With the Sunnis and Kurds excluded, the democracy lacks legitimacy for a large percentage of the population. It is possible, that with ISIS gone, the Sunnis will try to join the Shia as part of a new Baghdad regime. We shall see.

Chapter 14

The Poor, The Military, and Tyranny

Aristotle had pointed out that the poor—because they feel outside of the society— “below the law,”—aside from engaging in petty crime—tend to follow tyrannical leaders who promise them money and power. In the modern world, in nations that are developing, the poor obviously lag behind the middle-class and upper-class that emerge as global capitalism expands. Therefore, what sometimes occurs is that, though the middle-class expands dramatically and gains an excellent university education and attains prosperous careers, the poor lag far behind. In such a situation, a tyrant, or an extremist radical party, can recruit a huge police force and military from amongst the poor. The poor get prestigious uniforms, march in coordinated regiments, and gain good pay and decent housing. These poor are then used by the tyrannical government to repress the democratic movements of the middle class. China and Iran are good examples here.

The Case of China: A Billion People, No Shortage of Military Recruit China has the fastest growing capitalist economy in the world, and, it has spawned the most rapidly expanding middle-class—and upper-class—in the world. Both the middle-class and the upper class are university educated, scientifically oriented, entrepreneurial—and, increasingly Democratic in their political orientation. However, with a billion people, the Chinese Communist Party tyranny has recruited and trained thousands of police and military units. The Chinese dictatorship empowers the poor to tyrannize over the middle class—and even the upper class of the nouveau riche. The poor, as police, are ordered to arrest anyone suspected of antigovernment activities. And the police often bully those arrested—physically and mentally. The © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_14

105

106

14

The Poor, The Military, and Tyranny

police act like little tyrants lording it over the middle class college educated citizens, whom they resist. Worse yet, with a billion people, the military regiments are endless in number and can be called out to quell any rebellion from any segment of society. The military takeover of the Uyghurs—the Muslim minority in Northwest China after Islamicist terrorism occurred there—exemplifies this. The Uyghurs have all been put under arrest and, are being “re-educated”—that is, taught to be obedient and submerged into Han Chinese culture. The Muslim religion has been banned. The Chinese tyranny was able to repress the Uyghurs because their military is huge, well-trained, and well-organized. Thus, even though the newly expanding middle and upper classes have begun to let go of their Confucian obedience to Chinese central authority, and, even though these new capitalist based, scientifically oriented classes are beginning to understand the excitement of free speech, free press, artistic freedom, and electoral participation—as in Hong Kong—they do not dare to voice their new ideological proclivities for fear of repression. Xi Jinping, as mentioned earlier, has become more tyrannical than expected, and, moved China towards totalitarianism, rather than democracy. And, the poor support Xi and the communist tyranny in their role as policemen and soldiers. It should also be mentioned that Xi Jinping can no longer be looked upon as a Confucian “benevolent” ruler, caring for his people as a father would care for his family. If he had remained a moderate tyrant, supporting the growth of the capitalist economy, improving education, increasing China’s scientific and technological proclivities, and keeping order, he could have been viewed as a benevolent leader consistent with Confucian ideology. Totalitarianism is not benevolent. Xi is not watching over his “family” and keeping political order. Xi is watching people’s every move, like “Big Brother,” and forcing the Chinese citizens into political conformity. Given that Xi’s brand of totalitarianism is not perceived as Confucian, will the Chinese middle and upper classes reject it in favor of Western Democracy? Of course, they cannot show this, or they will be arrested. But, are they beginning to think in this democratic way? They are. But the poor Chinese of the police and army will not allow them to act. The hope? The hope is that the next generation of Communist Party leaders will be derived from the new middle and upper classes, such that democracy and law will emerge in China. More on China in the section on Tyranny.

Iran, Theocracy and the Persian Guard

107

Iran, Theocracy and the Persian Guard Like Iraq, Iran has a glorious past. But, unlike Iraq, the Iranians are still closely connected to their past glories. The Persian Empire dominated the Middle East until Alexander the Great and his Greek army defeated the Persians. The Persians, under the Parthian Dynasty, later revolted against the Greeks, and then against the Romans, such that Persia became independent and powerful again. During the Arabic Golden Age, the Persians made many great contributions to the new learning. Avicenna1 (Ibn Sina), a Persian, brought Indian numerals into mathematics, engendering a revolution in mathematics culminating in Algebra. He also improved on Galen’s Book of Anatomy, leading to an improvement in medicine. Other Persians wrote history and poetry, and philosophy that catapulted the Arabic Golden Age forward. Further, the Persians retained their independent monarchy, even into Turkish times. Thus, the Persian sense of cultural identity was strong, and Persian civilization was maintained into modern times. This is different from Iraq, whereas no “Babylonian” identity was maintained, and the Turks totally dominated the region. When oil was discovered, the British intervened in Persia. It was the British who reestablished a Persian monarchy, after the hereditary line of succession had petered out. The new King—The Shah—was an Army officer whom the British controlled. And, it was the British and this new royal elite that changed the name of the nation to Iran—going back to its pre-civilized tribal roots of the “Aryan” tribes. Every person I know calls themselves “Persians,” and they identify with Persian civilization and culture. But, the English chosen name persists. The reason we emphasize this is that unlike Iraq, the Iranians still see themselves and their nation as a grand player on the world stage. The Persians have pride in their heritage. Another critical difference between the Persians and the Arabs (of Iraq and Syria) is the Persian Empire was famous for two things: (1) their excellent government bureaucracy that ruled all of the Middle East efficiently; and (2) the Magi priesthood, who were well organized and generated the Zoroastrian tradition of heaven and hell, God and the devil, and a morality based on this dualism—and culminating in the theology of the Apocalypse—the end of days and the resurrection of the good people to heaven, and the casting down of the bad people to a fiery hell.2 The “wisemen” from the East who visit Bethlehem in the Christian Bible were Magi priests from Persia.3 And the apocalyptic theology of heaven and hell is originated by the Persian Magi, found in the Jewish zealots writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls,4 and was carried into Christianity as well. 1 Ibn Sina (Avicenna), advanced the study of Mathematics during the Arabic Golden Age (1000–1300 CE). 2 Zoroastrianism: God and the Devil, Heaven and Hell. 3 The Persian Magi priests were the “wise men” in the Christian story of the Birth of Christ. 4 The Dead Sea Scrolls, Google for English Translations.

108

14

The Poor, The Military, and Tyranny

Why do we mention these two factors? Because modern Iran has a well-run state, with a rapidly modernizing economy. And, the Persian Shia Muslims are the only Muslims with an institutionalized theocratic hierarchy—like the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It was not as powerful as the Catholic hierarchy until the remarkable—and unexpected—theocratic revolution of the 1970s. How did this happen? With the withdrawal of the British after World War II, and with the Russians encroaching from the north, the Americans entered Iran, and heavily influenced it from 1945 to 1970. We encouraged democratic elections, and, pressured the Shah to allow such elections. But when Mohammed Mosaddegh—a leftist intellectual—was elected, the USA feared Russian influence and nullified the election. The CIA put the Shah back in power, and he repressed the Democratic and leftist forces ruthlessly—he was hated. With the left crushed and the democracy pushed aside, a revolution against American—and Russian—control exploded in Iran. It was led by the Shia theocratic hierarchy—the Ayatollahs. This hierarchy of priests was led by the charismatic head priest, the Ayatollah Khomeini. He helped expel the USA and Russia, declared Iran fully independent and established one of the world’s few theocratic regimes. Aside from that of Buddhist Tibet,5 and the Jewish theocracy founded by Ezra6 after the Persians freed the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, modern Iran is the only example of a purely theocratic regime.

The Ayatollah Muslim Theocracy and the Persian Guard Army Versus the Middle Class and Democracy Since Iran has oil, the Ayatollahs theocratic regime was able to sell the oil and create a modern economic development. Because the Iranian people still see themselves as Persian, they identify with the Persian past and its contribution to world learning. The Persians emphasize education, science, and mathematics. Because of this emphasis on education, a modern middle-class emerged in Tehran and other cities. This middle class is well educated, prosperous and committed to democratic and lawful governance. They put so much pressure on the Ayatollahs, that the theocratic regime has allowed democratic elections to take place. However, the Ayatollahs sensor the list of candidates that are allowed to run for office. In this way, they keep the Iranian parliament rigged in their favor. Even with this control, the middle class and its representatives have demanded more economic modernization, and full-fledged democracy.

5

Tibet has a Buddhist Theocracy (now Chinese dominated). The Bible, book of Ezra, The Jewish Theocracy after Babylonian Exile, Oxford Study Bible, Oxford Press, London, 1980.

6

The Ayatollah Muslim Theocracy and the Persian Guard Army Versus the. . .

109

But, the Ayatollahs have control over the Army. Recruited from the noncollege educated working-class and rural poor, the Iranian Guard are deeply religious Muslims who back the Ayatollahs theocratic regime totally. The Persians consider themselves great warriors: Cyrus conquered the entire Middle East, and, even though they lost to Alexander, the Parthians later revolted against the Hellenistic Greeks and Romans, and successfully maintain their independence from the West. So, too, do the Persian Guard Army forces in today’s Iran see themselves as having successfully revolted from American control. So, the Iranian Army, led by the elite Persian Guard, are supporting antiAmerican and Pro-Ayatollah theocracy. Therefore, while the middle class is pushing for democracy and a modern society, the Army supports Islam and repressive theocracy. The problem for the middle class is that the working class of the cities and the rural poor support the theocracy. The middle classes have recently taken to the streets, demanding that the Ayatollahs give up their nuclear ambitions and modernize the nation. But, the Persian Guard has violently repressed these demonstrations. In fairness to the Ayatollahs, the Trump Administration pulled out of the nuclear agreement that Obama had so carefully negotiated. Therefore, unless a new agreement is negotiated, the anti-American situation will remain. And, in fairness to the Trump Administration, the Persian Guard, encouraged by the Ayatollahs, had expanded militarily into Iraq and Syria—threatening not only Israel but the Sunni Muslims as well. These Persian trained troops in the Middle East have been able to defeat the Arab-trained troops in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. However, the Russians have now intervened in Syria, and the United Nations in Yemen. The future of democracy in Iran—Persia—depends on the growth of the educated middle-classes, and, on the moderation of the Ayatollah theocracy and its army. American policy has much to do with the future in Iran. For, if a new nuclear treaty can be negotiated, and, if the sanctions are removed, then Iran’s economy can expand. The expansion of the Iranian economy and the subsequent modernization of the population will increase the chances of the Ayatollah regime allowing a true democratic Parliament to win elections. This can happen. The Ayatollahs were lightning their grip until the USA pulled out of the nuclear treaty. So, there is hope in Iran, and, the Army must slowly be brought under the control of the civil non-theocratic, parliamentary government which exists, at least nominally, in Iran.

Part III

Tyranny

Chapter 15

The Origins of Tyranny: From the War Chief and Shaman to Divine Kingship

Democracy and Tyranny: Both Intrinsic to the Human Political Potential Democracy is a purely human phenomenon. The signature characteristic of human beings—Homo sapiens—is our conscious awareness of ourselves, others, and the world around us. This consciousness leads to heightened intelligence, which, when combined with our voice boxes, allows for the development of language. Consciousness, awareness, and intelligence, combined with language, allows for intersubjective communication between human individuals—conversation, discussion, and the interchange of ideas. Democracy is created as a result of the human ability to discuss future plans, past occurrences, and present dilemmas. Only humans can engage in such discussions— no other animal can. Chimpanzees are highly intelligent and are conscious of themselves and their surroundings. But, they have no voice box—their intersubjective communication is limited because they have no language. Chimps teach by example, but they cannot instruct their young or their contemporaries.1 Similarly with porpoises and dolphins. Humans can and do engage in discussions about all things, both trivial and important. And, humans do instruct their children and pass on knowledge through language. We can conceive of the future and we do remember the past. In our primeval condition as hunter-gatherers, humans did discuss the hunt before going, and did discuss gathering strategies before embarking. And, in terms of group decision-making and leadership, the discussion council—“campfire democracy”— became a human possibility.2 Discussing policies, plans, and strategies, for economic, political, and military survival became a distinguishing characteristic of human bands and tribes. 1 2

Jane Goodall, In the Shadow of Man, Random House, 1980. Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_15

113

114

15

The Origins of Tyranny: From the War Chief and Shaman to Divine Kingship

Yes, the discussions were often gendered—men discussed hunting and war; women discussed gathering and childbirth and child-rearing—but the entire hunting-gathering band sat around a campfire at night discussing all issues—the older individuals being listened to for their acquired wisdom. This informal “campfire democracy” was carried over into tribal society,3 wherein horticulture or animal herding allowed for significant population growth. Amongst tribes, a more formal structure emerged, but it was still democratic. That is, each clan, or extended family, elected a headman to represent them at the tribal council. Amongst horticultural tribes, the women of the matrilineal clans usually had the vote and influenced the election of the clan headman.4 Amongst herding tribes, the women of the patrilineal clans did not have the vote, and the headman was chosen exclusively by the men.5 In both cases it had to be a headman because the tribal council would be discussing war, and warfare between tribes was more or less continuous though in most cases, not genocidal.6 In tribal democracy, the clan headmen—who were usually elder men—“wise elders”—met in council, and then presented their decisions to a warriors assembly, made up of all the young men over the age of puberty and the adult men. In horticultural tribes, the women sat outside the assembly of men, but could make their views known, either through a male surrogate speaker, or back at the clan meetings.7 Democracy typified tribal political organization as exhibited by the Iroquois Confederation (horticultural)8 and the Norse Confederation of the Viking Tribes (herding).9 If democracy typified most band and tribal societies, when did tyranny emerge, and why is most of human history the history of tyrannical politics?

The Origins of Tyranny Animal politics amongst group animals, is typified by “tyranny.” That is, the males fight, and the winners—the “alpha male”—becomes dominant. He maintains his dominance through direct force and violence. Any male that challenges him will be beaten. If this challenge continues, the challenger could be beaten to death. But, if the challenger wins, he becomes the alpha male.10

3

Ibid. Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society, NY, Amazon, 2012 (1877). 5 Oxford Study Bible, Exodus. 6 E. Adamson Hoebel, The Cheyenne Way, NY, Amazon, 2011. 7 Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society, NY, Amazon, 2012 (1877). 8 Ibid. 9 The Icelandic Sagas, Translated by Snorri Sturluson, NY, Amazon, 2010. 10 Conrad Lorenze, On Aggression, NY, Amazon, 2012. 4

From War Chief to “King”

115

A “pecking order” of males is usually exhibited amongst primates, with the alpha male maintaining order within the group, and leading the defense of the group. The alpha male will not only maintain order by using force against intransigent males, females, or teenagers, but will also risk his life defending the group against predators—leopards, lions, or another primate group competing for territory.11 So, order and defense are the hallmarks of animal dictatorship—and these will become the key elements of tyranny amongst human groups as well. But, how did we go from tribal democracy to tyranny?

From War Chief to “King” Even in band societies headman emerged, who led in hunting and war.12 Such headman could be found amongst African Bushmen and Australian Bushmen. Human DNA is close to that of chimpanzees, and our animal heritage is as strong as our purely human characteristics. However, the headman of bands, unlike the alpha males of chimpanzee groups, could be opposed by the human bands. The folklore of the human bands informs us that headmen who tried to become despotic by domineering the others—or using violence against members of the band—were ostracized by the band.13 The headman ship of human bands was a high status leadership position, but it did not exhibit violent coercion, but rather persuasion and good judgment—the headmanship of human bands was, therefore, a human leadership role, dependent on the human characteristics of intelligence, persuasion through language, and wise judgment. The folklore of band societies informs us that headmen did occasionally attempt to lead through force, violence, and coercion, but, that such attempts were blocked by the band’s ability to walk away from him, and leave him to starve or die from animal attack. Still, the fact that bandmembers describe attempts by the headman to rule through force, rather than persuasion, warns us that our animal heritage is very real, and that attempts at dictatorial control over human groups will be part of our political process.14 In most tribal societies, where the population was far larger than bands because of the introduction of horticulture or herding, the leadership role of the war chief, which was based on violence was counterbalanced by the leadership role of the clan elders, which was based on human intelligence, the wisdom of experience, and human intersubjective discussion.

11

Jane Goodall, In the Shadow of Man, Random House, 1980. John Marshall, The !Kung Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert. 13 Ibid. 14 Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. 12

116

15

The Origins of Tyranny: From the War Chief and Shaman to Divine Kingship

Let us look at this. In tribes, the extended family, or clan, became the key grouping of society. Because of the improved food supply, people lived longer, such that grandparents came to play an important role, both in the family and in the tribe at large. Grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces and nephews surrounded the pairing family and dominated them within the clan grouping. Whether the clans were matrilineal, as in horticultural societies—linked to the women’s gardening group—or patrilineal, as in herding societies—linked to the men’s herding role, the extended family, or clan, became a central social and political institution.15 Early clan elected a leader, a headman of the clan. This leader had to be a man, because the clan leaders would meet in a tribal council to discuss warfare and territorial movements. Only men could discuss these issues—they were “taboo” for women (as childbirth issues and gardening were “taboo” for men). So, the clan leader had to be a headman. He also had to be an “elder.” In slow changing societies, wisdom is gained by experience. Therefore, the elders possessed more experience and thus more wisdom. Of course, they could not be too old or senility would destroy their wisdom. Wise elders, above the age of 30, were chosen as clan headman. And in most tribes, these elders gathered together in regularly called meetings. They sat in the tribal council and discussed the issues facing the tribe.16 Again, why elder men? Not only was it believed that the elders gained wisdom, but also that the younger men were too violent—too motivated by their warlike and sexual drives to be trusted to make rational and wise decisions. The clan elders were often called “peace chiefs,” as opposed to the younger war-oriented men.17 The wise clan elders, sitting in the tribal council, continued the democratic demiurge of our specifically human characteristic of consciousness, awareness, intelligence, and language communication. So what will break up this democratic political process, and unleash our animal heritage? Warfare: As human population increased, tribes began to infringe on each other’s territories, and warfare became more dangerous, more genocidal. ______,18 the Israeli political scientist writes that even amongst the Australian Bushman, there were incidents of murderous warfare. And, descriptions of the emerging Iroquois League in North America show us that smaller tribes, like the Pequots, were terrified of the Iroquois, who were expanding Eastward until stopped by European disease in the Colonial period. And, the Icelandic Sagas show us the increasing brutality of

15

Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture, NY, Collier Books, 1952. For examples of “wise elders,” see The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Bible, Book of Judges. 17 Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society, NY, Amazon, 2012 (1877). See the Sachem as Peace Chiefs. 18 E.A. Ritter, Shaka Zulu, Amazon, 2003. 16

From War Chief to “King”

117

warfare amongst the Norse tribes around the time of the spread of Christianity into their territory.19 Given the increasing intensity of warfare and the larger size of the competing armies, the office of war chief became institutionalized in most tribes. The war chief was, at first, just the best and bravest of the warriors. He led them in battle. Early on, it might literally have been the biggest, strongest man. Sometimes, the war chief was literally called “the big man.” Gilgamesh, Sampson, Hercules, Norse Berserkers—all big strong men who led in battle—invincible warriors.20 However, when new and better weaponry were invented, and protective armor was invented, then the war chiefs became famous for their ability to organize and reorganize their troops into battle formation, and to deploy their troops most effectively, and to rouse their troops to heroic fighting form. Such leaders no longer had to be “big men,” but rather smart war organizers and charismatic rousers of their troops. Thus, Shaka Zulu21 was not the biggest warrior, he was the best organizer of his troops, developing a new fighting formation and new weapons—the short sword for close-up fighting. And, Alexander and Caesar were both relatively small men, but they organized and roused their troops to great feats of courage. So, too, Genghis Khan and Saladin. Most importantly, the office of war chief was institutionalized in most tribes alongside the council of clan elders. As warfare became more genocidal in nature, the office of war chiefs became more central in the polities of tribal confederations. The Epic of Gilgamesh exhibits this process. Gilgamesh, the war chief—the “big man,” wants to go to war. He pleads his case with the elders. The “wise elders” tell him no, too many people will die. But, Gilgamesh then brings his case to the warriors assembly. They vote yes—they are young men and want to go to war. So, Gilgamesh goes back to the wise elders, and they, hearing that the warriors have overwhelmingly voted yes to war, they reluctantly approve. Gilgamesh is becoming more powerful than the elders.22 Later on in Samarian writings, there is written a sad lament on the terrible toll warfare is taking—so many people dead, so many funerals, so many mothers and wives crying for their dead men. Warfare, however, continued to intensify.23 Amongst the Norse tribes of Norway, the Icelandic Sagas tell us that the war chief, Harold, overruled the clan elders (amongst the Norse tribes they were only chosen from certain “aristocratic” clans, but they were elders nonetheless).24 As warfare expands and becomes murderous, Harold’s power expands beyond that of the clan elders.

19

The Icelandic Sagas, Translated by Snorri Sturluson, NY, Amazon, 2010. The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Bible, Book of Judges. 21 E.A. Ritter, Shaka Zulu, Amazon, 2003. 22 Samuel Noah Kramer, History Begins at Sumer, NY, Amazon, 2010. 23 The Icelandic Sagas, Translated by Snorri Sturluson, NY, Amazon, 2010. 24 Ibid. 20

118

15

The Origins of Tyranny: From the War Chief and Shaman to Divine Kingship

The war chief, then, gains equal or superior status to the clan elders. How did the war chiefs consolidate and expand their power? They did it by developing a loyal following from a group of dedicated warriors—dedicated to following the war chief, fighting for him, acting to violently repress anyone or any group opposed to him. The war chiefs developed a loyal retinue of warriors, linked to the person in the office of war chief.25 The young men, known for their violence and irrationality, were set loose in that society, against the clan elders, giving the war chiefs more power than the elders, and overriding their mystique for wisdom. The wisdom of the elders was turned into the weakness of the elders, as warfare became the central issue confronting large tribal confederations surrounded by other tribal confederations trying to drive them off their territory and eradicate them. Again, the Icelandic Sagas tell the tale. Harold drew around him a retinue of violent warriors who were loyal to him. He called forth the clan elders from all the Norwegian Tribes, and asked for their loyalty. Those who refused were murdered, or driven out of Norway. Most, seeing this violence and terror, joined Harold and swelled his power, such that he became—not just a war chief—but a “king.” Descriptions of Genghis Khan among the Mongol tribes paint a similar picture. Anyone opposed to Genghis Khan was murdered, and most tribal clan leaders and warriors eventually joined him, such that he became more than just another Mongol war chief. Once the office of war chief was no longer balanced by the institutionalized council of clan elders, the war chiefs—backed by their loyal retinues of young warriors—could become tyrants. That is, they could, and did rule through violence, force, terror, and intimidation—the alpha male of the animal world was back, and, the purely human political institution of democracy—discussion, words, non-violence, wisdom—was repressed. In Norway, those in favor of tribal democracy fled to Iceland. There they were able to escape the murderous power of Harold, and there they maintained tribal democracy for centuries. However, Iceland is isolated and on the periphery of the inhabited world. In most areas of the world, tribal democracy was overwhelmed by the power of the war chiefs and their murderous retinues. How did the war chiefs become “kings”—superhuman, divine entities, with “absolute power” over all their subjects?

The Role of the Priesthood in the Establishment of Kingship Henri Frankfort, in his book Kingship and the Gods,26 describes how amongst the Egyptians and Mesopotamians the war leaders became “divine kings.” 25 26

Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, New York, Amazon, 2011.

The Role of the Priesthood in the Establishment of Kingship

119

Let us go back to tribes. Amongst tribes, not only were there clan elders and war chieftains, there were also shamans—healers of the sick, organizers of tribal rituals, interpreters of dreams, and mystical connectors to the world of “spirits.”27 Again, we are describing a purely human phenomenon. For consciousness is a double-edged sword. On the one hand our awareness of ourselves, others, and the world around us gives us, as humans, our key advantage over other animals—we are intelligent, we can pool our intelligence, we can pass on our intelligence to our young and build a “stock of knowledge” such that our history is the history of progress and technical mastery.28 However, consciousness also gives us the ability to anticipate the future by observing the present and remembering the past. Because of this, we come to know that we will die—we don’t know when or how, but we do know we will die. So fear of our own death and the death of our loved ones is a real phenomenon which humans have to deal with. We can also anticipate scary and frightening events—perhaps lions or leopards will attack us—we have seen them attack and kill animals. Perhaps elephants or cattle will trample us—we have seen them stampede. Anxiety about deadly events can haunt us, and “nature” is a frightening entity. Storms come out of nowhere and people are hurt; floods kill people; fires from lightning burn our dwellings; volcanoes erupt and deadly gases and lava kill everything in their wake; earthquakes happen, and the earth literally swallows up people and animals; diseases sickened and killed people with no cause visible—why did some people die, while others lived? “Nature” was so frightening to humans that we attributed spiritual forces to it. There were evil spirits that spread death and destruction, but there also were good spirits who brought birth, life, and renewal. Given the existential anxiety29 that humans feel when they cannot explain life, death, and natural events, they turn to individuals in their societies who tried to explain, control, heal, and calm existential anxiety. Most tribal societies had shamans—they were both male and female. Female, because women could bring life and sustain life through breast-feeding. And, women, therefore were closer to the spirit world. Women could interpret dreams, and perhaps, heal the sick. Men, too, could salve wounds, and hold rituals that by their very repetitive and familiar style could calm existential anxiety. So, both men and women were designated as “shaman” if they showed “mystical” talent and learned the skills of healing—healing through physical means and through mental means. Hypnotic trances and ritual repetition were as important as herbal cures in the shaman’s repertoire.

27

Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. Peter Berger and Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality, NY, Random House, 1970. 29 Jean Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, NY, Amazon 2012. 28

120

15

The Origins of Tyranny: From the War Chief and Shaman to Divine Kingship

Shamans were as venerated as the war chiefs and the elders.30 Some were credited with so much mystical power that they could unite warring tribes, stop the slaughter after a battle, and defy death through miraculous cures. Of course, there were also shamans who enhanced their power by learning about poisons. Such shamans sometime abused their role as healers, and became feared as potential killers!31 So, shamans could heal and shamans could kill. In both cases, the shaman developed power. And, though abuses of power were not uncommon, the shaman, in most tribal societies, developed high status, and were honored as those who could commune with the spirits of nature.

The Shaman Becomes a Priesthood In the post tribal societies, unified by one war chief or another, the shaman became organized into an institutionalized priesthood.32 The warrior “kings” were responsible for war—organizing, equipping, and leading the army. They also had their loyal retinue to protest them and to repress any opposition to their power. Their power was purely military—the army and the retinue being their source of political control. The priesthoods—male and female—came to gain control of the economy, once agriculture was invested, and large-scale grain production became central. This grain production needed irrigation. And, river flood irrigation was dangerous if not properly controlled. The priesthoods—having knowledge of nature—were entrusted with the control of river flood systems. This occurred in Egypt with the Nile River; Mesopotamia with the Tigris and Euphrates River; in India with the Indus and Ganges Rivers and in China with Yangtze and Yellow Rivers; and in Central America with the underground water sources there. These priesthoods not only ran the “Temple” economies of these societies,33 but also developed knowledge such as creating calendars, mapping the stars, and developing sophisticated theologies of gods and goddesses—anthropomorphic rather than just spirits—and the theology of the “soul” living on beyond the body. Though humanoid gods and goddesses do not seem like a theological improvement, it is in the sense that humans become godlike, because the gods and goddesses are pictured as human, rather than abstract forces of nature. This mental shift would be utilized by the priesthoods to lend divinity to the war chief. Once the war chief is given godlike status, then he becomes a “king.”

30

Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. Ibid. 32 Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, New York, Amazon, 2011. 33 Karl Polanyi, Trade and Markets in the Early Empires, New York, Free Press, 1952. 31

“Benevolent” Kings Versus Tyrants

121

At first, it was said that the kings were descended from the gods—one or both of his parents were gods. But then it became the belief that the king embodied the god, the god ruled through the king—the king was “divine.”34 If the king is a god, then the king has absolute power.

“Benevolent” Kings Versus Tyrants Once kings became gods, once they gained absolute power, then tyranny on a terrible scale could be let loose. The kings had the power of life and death over all of their subjects. Tyrannical kings abounded—I shall give a few examples soon. However, the priesthoods were running the economy for the good of the people. The temples held storehouses of food for times of famine—this is described in the Story of Joseph in the Jewish Bible—Joseph in Egypt, of course.35 And, the kings themselves, though they mostly engaged in massive warfare campaigns, wanted their society to be prosperous, and, they wanted the luxury goods produced by their craftsman as well. So, the kings wanted prosperity and they wanted their subjects to be in good health and good skill. Like the father in a family, they wanted their “children” to prosper. Many kings, therefore, acted “benevolently,” to borrow a Confusian36 concept, and they often became beloved by the people. Hence, the term “traditional authority,” coined by Max Weber,37 became the authority of kings—and kings did gain legitimacy—and this legitimacy was enhanced by the priesthoods (or in the case of China, by the well-educated Mandarin officials who lent their authority to the kings of China. These Chinese officials promoted and expanded the authority of the kings by teaching the people that the kings ruled with the “mandate from heaven”38—which is essentially the same as teaching that the kings were divine). In terms of “benevolent,” kings, such kings as Hammurabi of Babylon come to mind. In the preamble to Hammurabi’s famous Law Code, the king tells his people that he is a caring king who will bring order and justice to all the subjects under his rule. Many Egyptian kings—in order to ensure that their souls lived on after coming before the “scales of justice” of the god of the underworld Osiris—actively attempted to be benevolent in their lifetimes. Hatshepsut, the woman pharaoh, and Ramesses I, put themselves forward as monarchs who created order and prosperity for their subjects. And Cyrus the Great of Persia also projected himself as—not only

34

Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, New York, Amazon, 2011. Oxford Study Bible, The Story of Joseph. 36 Confucius, The Analects, NY, Amazon, 2000. 37 Max Weber, Economy and Society “Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich,” New York, Academic Press, 1961. 38 Confucius, The Analects, NY, Amazon, 2000. 35

122

15

The Origins of Tyranny: From the War Chief and Shaman to Divine Kingship

as a world conqueror—but a monarch of justice and moral law. Numerous Chinese emperors were also known as models of Confucian benevolence. Because of the success of the benevolent kings, “traditional authority” emerged as a legitimate form of authority, even though it’s basis is totally irrational. The reason that divine-kingly authority is irrational is that kings are not divine—and any subject who believes that kings are truly gods is delusional—delusional in Marx’s terms, as suffering from “false consciousness.”39 It is called false consciousness by Marx because the subjects believe they are inferior beings—commoners—while the Kings and aristocrats have “royal blood” linked with descent from the gods. Since this is, of course, a myth, it is false. Hence, traditional authority—the authority of divine kings—is an irrational phenomenon. Aristotle tells us that when subjects become educated to rational philosophy, science, and mathematics, kingship disappears, because no one believes that any one man can be so superior to others.40 But Aristotle also tells us that tyranny does not decline, because tyrants rule through force and violence. Yet, kings, too, ruled through force and violence—subjects bowed down to kings, not only because they believed they were divine, but also because they knew that if they did not bow down, they would be killed. So, let us look at some examples of tyrannical kings who were murderous and rule through violence and force, not benevolence. Marco Polo visiting China during the reign of Kublai Khan, the Mongol conqueror related to Genghis Khan, describes in his published memoir,41 how if anyone displeased Kublai Khan as he held court, he would point at that person, and his guards would grab him and chop off his head. Marco Polo trembled, like everyone else, in the Great Khan’s presence. And Chinese historians, like Xun Xi,42 describe emperors who would execute the whole clan of anyone who opposed them—even the children and women of the clan. Xun Xi believe this was necessary in order to keep the people frightened enough to obey. He did not believe in Confucian benevolence, but rather, Machiavellian terror and violence, to keep order. The Empress Wu was denigrated by male historians, for executing many clans of her opponents. She did this, but so did many male Chinese emperors. In Mesopotamia, the Assyrian kings were noted for their brutality—not only in war, but against their own subjects in peace time. Ashurbanipal prides himself, not for benevolence, but for piling up bodies of his foes.43 And, Herodotus tells the story of King Xerxes of Prussia, who, in an attempt to organize a giant army to invade Greece, committed this atrocity.

39

Karl Marx, The German Ideology, NY, Collier Paperback, 1951. Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. 41 Marco Polo, Travels to China, NY, Amazon, 2010. 42 See King Ashurbanipal of Syria. 43 Herodotus, Histories, (on Xerxes) London, Penguin, 1951. 40

Manufactured Charisma and Legitimacy

123

A man begged Xerxes to leave his youngest son home to care for him in his old age. Xerxes said he would think about it, that the man should come back with his son and his wife the next day. When the man came the next day, Xerxes ordered his guards to grab the young son and killed him on the spot. Then they grabbed the man’s wife—her breasts and her nose were cut off. She was left disfigured but alive. And Xerxes said to the shattered man, “I said, I want all the sons recruited for my army.”44 Herodotus tells this story to make the point that even where a king is rational— not insane like Cambyses, Cyrus’s son, he, the king can and will act violently against his people if he wishes to. Such a king has absolute power, and can thus act beyond the limits of cultural morality. Thus, tyrannical kings were as common as benevolent kings. And, traditional authority contains a mixture of irrational false consciousness and very rational fear. Once the king gained “traditional legitimacy,” the fact of their absolute power became muted—even though many kings acted like murderous tyrants, and, all kings were feared, they were the ultimate alpha males—subjects had to bow down, avert their eyes, and crawl on their bellies in the presence of the king. Terrible tyranny was masked by the divine status of the king. And this human form of alpha male domination was far more horrible then the animal version. As Aristotle wrote, “Humans can be the best of creatures, or, the worst—far worse than the beasts.”45 Kings committed atrocities far beyond any alpha male chimp’s abilities. Yet, the kings were legitimate rulers, even when they committed hideous atrocities. Though tales of the horrifying atrocities committed by kings abound in human history, the legitimacy of the divine kings remained intact. So powerful was this traditional legitimation that it almost wiped out the memory of democracy from human consciousness. Democracy became inconceivable under the rule of divine kings. Kings and battles came to define human history, as humans became slave-like subjects of the god-like kings.

Manufactured Charisma and Legitimacy In order to make sure that the king and the royal family were perceived as gods, they dressed up in magnificent clothing, war crowns and jewels and gold and silver, sat on giant stone thrones, held golden or silver scepters, lived in gigantic palaces, when out surrounded by Royal guards dressed magnificently also. They were buried in colossal tombs, in which it was insured that they would join their godly ancestors.

44 45

Herodotus, The Histories. Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960.

124

15

The Origins of Tyranny: From the War Chief and Shaman to Divine Kingship

The whole political system was choreographed to display opulence and to lend high status to anybody occupying the throne. All the divine kingship’s engaged in these public displays of grandiosity, such that the “royals” appeared godly—even to those skeptics not taken in by the false ideology and irrational legitimation. These effects—the magnificent bejeweled clothing, crowns, and the like— succeeded in manufacturing charisma for anyone who occupied the office of king or queen or prince or princess or duke or duchess, etc. “Charisma” is an irrational response to a leader wherein the followers believe the leader will lead them to success in any mission undertaken. Pure charisma occurs when a leader appears, who, by his or her personal strength is able to rouse their followers to feats of greatness. Such leaders can be military, like Attila the Hun, or Alexander the Great, or religious, like Moses or Mohammed or Jesus. Religious and military leadership can be combined, as in Joan of Arc. Or charisma can occur in electoral politics, as with Teddy Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy. What we are focusing on here, however, is manufactured charisma,46 that is, charisma created by artificial effects that enhances the esteem of the individual, even where that individual has no genuine charisma. A perfect example is Queen Elizabeth II, who today exists in England. She is actually a little old lady with no personal charisma and few political talents. Yet, dressed in royal garb, traveling in a royal carriage surrounded by a magnificently uniformed Royal Guard, and living in a gigantic set of palaces, the British—and most visitors—bow and curtsy in deference to her elevated status as Queen of the British Empire. The reason we mention these manufactured charismatic effects of the divine kingships is that modern dictators—seeking to enhance their own charisma—have utilized such manufactured effects. The Nazis, in twentieth century Germany, brought this process to its maximum success—as captured in Leni Riefenstahl’s movie, Triumph of the Will.47 Let it suffice to say here that the divine kings successfully manufactured charisma and created an aura of godliness so successful that divine kingships lasted for thousands of years.48 And again, let me reiterate, that where divine kingship was successfully institutionalized, democracy—which is grounded in equality—all men are created equal— could not exist. Thus, though democracy had preceded divine kingship in many tribal societies, it could no longer be conceived of within the political atmosphere engendered by the divine kings, their priesthoods, their bureaucracy, and their loyal military retinues.49

46

Ronald M. Glassman and William Swatos, Jr., Charisma, History and Social Structure, NY Praeger, 1981. 47 Glassman and Swatos. 48 Ibid. 49 Leni Riefenstahl, Film: “Triumph of the Will”.

Manufactured Charisma and Legitimacy

125

History became the story of kings, and false consciousness prevailed. Only in the independent city-states did democracy survive and, only after the rational-scientific worldview became predominant, did the divine kingship decline.

Chapter 16

The Emergence of Tyranny Without Traditional Kingship

The City-States of the Middle East Retain Traditional Kingship in Limited Form In the great civilizations, where divine kingly authority unified and directed society, tribal democracy disappeared. In Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, parts of India, Mexico and Peru, tribal democracy barely left any vestiges as centuries of divine kingly authority dominated these regions. However, in the city-states of the Middle East and Mediterranean regions, tribal democracy survived and was reorganized into city-state democracy—where the citystates were allowed their independence from the divine kingly states surrounding them. We have discussed the phenomenon of city-state democracy and oligarchy in an earlier chapter (and also, in greater detail, in my book, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes City-States, and Nation-States).1 Here we wish to emphasize that even though the city-states of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Phoenicia were allowed both their economic and political independence by the Mesopotamian and Egyptian monarchies, they retained, not only vestiges of tribal democracy, but also a strong component of traditional kingly authority. That is, the city-states of Mesopotamia, such as Mari and Ebla and those of Phoenicia, such as Tyre and Sidon, not only exhibited a council of elders (made up of rich merchants and bankers) and a citizens assembly (made up of craftsmen and farmers), but also exhibited a traditional kingship backed by a powerful priesthood. Hence, the city Council of oligarchic elders met and made policy, and, they submitted their policies to the citizens assembly for a yes or no vote.2 But, the army (and navy) were under the control of the city king. And, these kings had all the trappings of the divine kings of the great empires surrounding them. The kings (and 1 2

Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_16

127

128

16 The Emergence of Tyranny Without Traditional Kingship

queens and queen mothers) dressed in magnificent clothing, lived in city palaces, sat on thrones, wore crowns of gold and jewels—the whole “manufactured charismatic” process3 was invoked. And this charismatization was actively reinforced by the institutionalized priesthood—male and female—in these city-states. The “sacred marriage rite” continued to be enacted, wherein the king dressed as a god of war and the high priestess (not the queen) dressed as the goddess of fertility—this is described by Frazier, in The Golden Bow.4 The ceremony, and, the human sacrifice of babies to “The Flames of Moloch”— as the Bible5 tells us—reinforced the legitimacy of the city kings and helped maintain order within each city-state. Yet, the power of the kings in these city-states was countervailed by the powers of the wealthy city oligarchs. And, the citizens assembly, where it still held a warrior role as the city militia, also countervailed the power of the kings. Thus, the kings of the city-states, though venerated and allowed to live in great splendor, could not become tyrants. They did not rule through force, nor did they have a military retinue. They were generals, in charge of the army, and they were judges in cases of capital crimes. But, their authority was carefully defined and contained within these spheres. They did not make policy, and they had no control over the economy. The Kings, even given their splendorous appearance, did not dominate the Phoenician, Syrian, or Mesopotamian trading cities. Aristotle tells us that the Phoenician city-states were mixed polities, with elements of oligarchy, democracy, and monarchy, and, that they function quite well. He does not mention tyranny—one man rule through force and violence.6 The only mention of an attempt at tyranny comes centuries later at Carthage, when (1) the kingship was abolished, and Hannibal’s family of generals attempted to use their army of Berber mercenaries to dominate the politics of Carthage. However, the attempts at tyranny by those generals failed, as they lost out to the Romans in the Punic Wars.7 To sum up, then, the existence of the traditional kingship and priesthood in the Middle Eastern city-states prevented tyranny from emerging in its purely military form. And, the domination of the economy by the oligarchic merchants and bankers, gave them the power to limit monarchy such that these city-state kings never developed absolute power. These were truly “mixed polities” in the Aristotelian sense.8

3 Ronald M. Glassman and William Swatos, Jr., Charisma, History and Social Structure, NY Praeger, 1981. 4 James George Frazer, The Golden Bough, New York, Amazon, 2011. (1890). 5 Oxford Study Bible. 6 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. 7 Polybins, Book VI, The History of Rome, NY, Amazon 2006. 8 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960.

The Greek City-States Rise as Trading Cities with No Kings and No Priests

129

The Abolition of Monarchy and the Absence of an Institutionalized Priesthood in the Greek City-States In the Greek city-states kingship disappeared with the Doric invasion and the subsequent destruction of the Mycenaean9 civilization. During the Dark Ages10 and into the “archaic era,” kingship disappeared—only a vestige was left in Sparta, but the two kings of Sparta balanced each other out, and they eventually became generals of the newly formulated army, rather than traditional kings.11 Not only did monarchy disappear, but so too did the influence of the Minoan priesthood—male and female—which disappeared with the Doric-Greek conquest of Crete. Greece regressed into a tribal-like condition, with a handful of aristocratic clans claiming both military leadership and ritual leadership as well. The military aristocrats did develop high status as horse cavalry, leading the foot soldiers—but there was no king—all the aristocrats of a region elected a local council of elders. But, these “wise elders” had to be elected only from the designated aristocratic clans. (The Norse tribes of Europe, centuries later, would exhibit a similar political process.)12 So, there were no kings, and, with no priesthood, “soothsayers” emerged to read omens and interpret dreams—very tribal, very primitive—they lacked political power. Members of the aristocratic clans—women as well as men—were chosen to lead the religious rituals at the time of specified holidays. Women often took the lead in this, as Aristophanes describes in his comedic play Worshiping Women,13 and which Euripides described in his tragedy, The Bachae.14

The Greek City-States Rise as Trading Cities with No Kings and No Priests When, between 600 BCE and 400 BCE, the Greek trading cities arose out of the Dark Ages, the military aristocrats and their council of elders, at first, dominated them. However, as trade-capitalism engendered a money, banking, and export economy, a class of newly rich merchants and bankers began to replace the military aristocrats on the city councils. And, the warriors assembly became a citizens assembly—made up of craftsmen and farmers.

9

Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. Mark Pendergrast, Archaic Greece, Google Books. 11 Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. 12 The Icelandic Sagas, Translated by Snorri Sturluson, NY, Amazon, 2010. 13 Aristophanes, Worshipping Women. 14 Euripides, The Bacchae. 10

130

16 The Emergence of Tyranny Without Traditional Kingship

This transition is described by Aristotle and his students in The Constitution of Athens.15 In the section on Salon, the new trade-capitalist classes are delineated in exact detail by their monetary wealth. The old military aristocracy losing their prestige unless they acquired money wealth or used their estates for cash crop production. The old military aristocracy also lost their power, because a new military formation came to dominate Greek battle style. The heavy armored hoplite phalanx16 replaced horse cavalry and charioteering as the best military formation. The men of the citizens assembly formed the core of this hoplite phalanx, so, horse cavalry aristocrats lost their power. They continue to lead in the battle, but they had to dismount and front the phalanx to lead.

Personal Rule Without the Legitimacy of Traditional Kingship We have described all this in our description of oligarchy and democracy in the Greek city-states. Here we wish to emphasize that, with no kingship and no priesthood, pure tyranny—one-man rule through force, violence, and terror— emerged. No “traditional” legitimation surrounded the tyrants who emerged in the Greek city-states. And, they engaged in atrocities that rivaled tyrannical kings, and without the nod to “benevolence” which the traditional kings usually attempted. Personal rule and the establishment of political order, through direct military force, characterized the tyranny of the Greek city-states. Plato, who did not favor democracy or oligarchy, would describe tyranny as the worst form of government of all.17

Herodotus and the Forms of Government The Greeks of “The Golden Age” notice that their politics were different from the civilizations around them. They saw that the Persians and Egyptians had grand monarchies and that the people were submissive to these kings—subjects, not citizens. And they saw that even in the Phoenician city-states—from whom they had learned trade-capitalism, as well as alphabetic writing—there were kings. Herodotus traveling widely, and observing Egypt, Persia, Phoenicia, and the tribes of the Black Sea region (Scythia), is the first human we know to write down

15

Aristotle, The Constitution of Athens, London, Penguin Classics, 1964. Joshua Ober, Demokratia (Hoplite Phalanx), Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1984. 17 Plato, The Republic, London, Penguin Classes, 1950. 16

Herodotus and the Forms of Government

131

the different forms of government that he observed—and to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. In his famous “fictionalized” story of the Persian Princes who were heirs to the throne, he has these princes discuss the different forms of government. He knows they never did do this, and teases that some of his countrymen say it never happened, but he presents it as if it did happen because he wants the reader (or listener—he lectured for a fee) to know that there are different forms of government, and, each form has strengths and weaknesses.18 It is significant that Herodotus lets us know that his countrymen—Greeks—are sure that the Persian Princes never had such a discussion, because he knows, and the Greek intellectuals know, that the Persians—and the Egyptians—know no other form of government than divine kingship. Yet, the Greeks know because they did not have a divine kingly government, but rather oligarchic or democratic forms of government. The Greeks knew of tyranny, as well, and Plato will focus on it. But, let us look at Herodotus’ discussion of the forms of government first. Some of our own countrymen—Hellenes—refuse to believe that these speeches were actually made at all; nevertheless they were.

“Otones spoke first and he recommended the establishment of democratic government. “I think,” he said, “the time has passed for any one man amongst us to have absolute power. Monarchy is neither pleasant nor good. You know to what lengths the pride of power carried Cambyses. . . How can one fit monarchy into any sound system of ethics, when it allows a man to do whatever he likes without any responsibility or control.” Even the best of men raised to such a position would be bound to change for the worse. . .The typical vices of a monarch are envy and pride; envy because it is a natural human weakness, and pride, because excessive wealth and power lead to the delusion that he is something more than a man. These two vices are the root cause of all wickedness; both lead to acts of savage and unnatural violence. . . And the worst is yet to be said. . . He forces women to serve his pleasure and puts men to death without trial.19 Contrast this with the rule of the people: first, it is the finest of all names to describe it— equality under law; and secondly, the people in power do none of the things that monarchs do. Under government of the people, magistrates. . . Are held responsible for their conduct in office, and all policies are put up for open debate. For these reasons, I propose that we do away with monarchy, and raise the people to power. For democracy and the people are synonymous terms.20

18

Herodotus, Histories, (on Xerxes) London, Penguin, 1951. Ibid., pp. 238–239, Penguin Classics. 20 Ibid. 19

132

16 The Emergence of Tyranny Without Traditional Kingship

The Critique of Democracy The people are a feckless lot, nowhere will you find more ignorance or irritability. . . the mob does not understand [policy], they act like a volatile crowd. . . The masses have not a thought in their heads; all they can do is rush blindly into politics, like a river flood. So, let us give power to the best men in the country.21

Darius says, however, “We should not annul customs of our forefathers, which are ordered well. . .I say that [the rule of one] is by far superior to the others. . .”.22 Darius, of course, becomes the next King of Persia. But, the Greeks, educated enough in science and secular law, did not accept kingship. They knew that the Persians and Egyptians did accept kingship, and, that such kingship was legitimate in that the people lent their consent to the monarchy. However, the Greeks understood that they themselves had grown intellectually and educationally, such that they had outgrown the monarchical form of government. The Greeks did not believe that any one individual possessed such grandeur of intellect as to deserve absolute power. And being educated to a rational worldview— both scientific and lawful—they could not consent to a kingly form of government.

Aristotle on the Decline of Kingship and the Rise of Tyranny Aristotle said it best: “Kingship has now gone out of fashion, and any government of that type which emerges today is as a personal government or tyranny. Kingship is a government by consent, with sovereign authority in matters of major importance, and such a government is now an anachronism.” Equality is generally diffused; and there is nobody outstanding enough for the grandeur and the dignity of the office of king. There is, thus, no basis for a form of government consent for such a government when it is imposed by fraud or by force it is instantly regarded as a form of tyranny. Kings cease to be kings when their subjects cease to be willing subjects, though tyrants can continue to be tyrants whether their subjects are willing or not.23

Though the Greeks no longer legitimated monarchy, they were as Aristotle warned, still plagued by tyranny. During the chaotic and often violent transition from aristocracy to oligarchy to democracy, sometimes political order broke down so completely that the anarchy led to violence, civil disorder, and crime.24

21

Ibid. Ibid. 23 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. 24 Ibid. 22

How Do Tyrants Maintain Their Power and Gain Some Modicum of Legitimacy?

133

Tyrants arose, promising order and utilizing military power to enforce such order. Tyrants usually arose in the ancient Greek city-states with the support of the people against the oligarchs. Such was the case in Athens, for instance, with the tyrant Peisistratos.25 However, in some cases, tyrants arose to protect the oligarchs from the people—the politics of Corinth exhibit this phenomenon, with a sense of tyrants repressing the people’s bid for democracy and safeguarding the position of the wealthy and aristocratic oligarchs. In Syracuse, tyrants arose with the support of the people, executing or exiling the oligarchs. However, in Syracuse, because of the ongoing war against Carthage for control of Sicily, the tyrants stayed in power with the support of a large army of mercenaries—Greeks from other city-states fighting for Syracuse against Carthage and being paid to do so.26 The tyrants of Syracuse, having gained control of the wealth of the exiled or dead oligarchs, stayed in power by paying the mercenaries and buying their loyalty. The people of Syracuse did overthrow the tyrants, and did establish democracy. But, the war against Carthage continued, mercenaries had to be rehired, and subsequent tyrants utilized them again to solidify their power.27 The case of Syracuse is not typical. In most Greek city-states, mercenaries were not a factor, and the citizens hoplite phalanx was enough to protect the people from attack. With the hoplite phalanx under their control, the people of many of the citystates established democratic rule, abolishing wealth oligarchy and military aristocracy, and exiling any individual who attempted to become a tyrant. Ostracism was a major weapon used by the democratic citizens assembly against any individual they thought might be plotting to take dictatorial control.28 Of course, the democratic assemblies wronged some leaders, ostracizing them on false evidence. But, the institution of ostracism helped democracies maintain their lawful power against the threat of tyranny. Tyrants, however, rule through direct military force, and, as Aristotle wrote, “Tyrants can rule whether the populace is willing to consent to them or not.”29

How Do Tyrants Maintain Their Power and Gain Some Modicum of Legitimacy? Tyranny without the “aura” of godliness surrounding it was a new phenomenon which emerged in the Greek city-states. The Middle Eastern and Phoenician citystates had traditional kings, though their role was limited to the military sphere, and 25

Aristotle, The Constitution of Athens, London, Penguin Classics, 1964. Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, London, Penguin Classics 1951. 27 Eric W. Robinson, Greek Democracy (on Syracuse), Amazon, 2000. 28 Aristotle, The Constitution of Athens, London, Penguin Classics, 1964. 29 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. 26

134

16 The Emergence of Tyranny Without Traditional Kingship

their power was limited by the oligarchic council of wealthy merchant elders and the citizens assembly of craftsmen and farmers. These city kings had lesser powers then the great kings of the surrounding empires, but, they were legitimated as divine—embodying the war god. The Greek city-states had no kings, and they had no institutionalized priesthood as well. There was no basis for the legitimation of one-man rule. Therefore, where a man became a tyrant, he could do so only by using military force. Now, the war chief role—a purely military role—had morphed into kingship by merger with the shaman’s role, divinity being conferred on the king by the priests, and military power being extended to state power—the control of all government officials. The Greek city-states had no bureaucratic state officials with permanent positions; they had “magistrates,” who took turns administering the state. So, not only were there no priests, but there were no secular bureaucrats either! Thus, a tyrant had no legitimation institution to usurp. He had to control a military regiment and an armed guard force in order to survive and stay in power. Tyranny, therefore, arose in the Greek city-states whenever a tyrant could recruit a regiment and personal guard to protect him and enforce his will on the people. Then, as now, there were ample poor and working-class individuals who could be recruited to support a tyrant and override the military power of the citizens or the oligarchs. Aristotle makes it clear that it was the poor who supported the tyrants in most cases30 and by equipping, training, and paying the poor, the tyrant ensured their loyalty against the middle class and wealthy citizens. So, the number one factor ensuring the tyrant of remaining in power, was—and still is—direct violent, military and policing power. But tyrants want legitimacy, so that their tenure of office will become more secure. Therefore, they utilized three other political factors, besides direct military and police power. They utilize: terror, to frighten the people into acquiescence; they use their military and policing power to create internal political order in situations where disorder, anarchy, chaos and violence had overcome everyday life; and lastly they used charisma—the enhancement of personal charisma with manufactured charismatic effects,31 rivaling divine kingship, but not institutionalized in the society in question. Let us look at all these factors.

30

Ibid. Ronald M. Glassman and William Swatos, Jr., Charisma, History and Social Structure, NY Praeger, 1981.

31

Charisma: Real and Manufactured

135

Power, Terror, Order, and Charisma We have already discussed the factor of power. The direct use of military and police power was turned against the people by the tyrant. And, the military regiment and police loyal to the tyrant were usually recruited from the poor and laboring classes. What about terror? The tyrant of Syracuse, ________(??), whose horrific acts are described by Machiavelli, in The Prince,32 but gleaned, of course, from ancient Greek sources, utilized terror tactics to frighten the citizens of Syracuse into submission. Having told the wealthier citizens to gather in the city square, promising them a return to their oligarchic power, he then had them massacred by the mercenary soldiers in his employ. The massacre of the rich—hundreds slaughtered in plain view—so frightened the Syracusans, that they paid homage to the tyrant allowing him to rule for life. As for the mercenaries, they were frightened that the Syracusan citizens would murder them, so they stayed loyal to the tyrant to protect themselves. The act of terror against the wealthy citizens stood as a warning to the rest that they would share the same fate—public slaughter—if they dared revolt against the tyrant and his loyal mercenaries. With the Greek cities racked with revolutionary democrats against counterrevolutionary oligarchs, sometimes the political disorder became too much for the everyday citizens of both parties. Where a tyrant stepped in and restored order, allowing everyday economic, social, and family life to return to stability and normalcy, that tyrant would gain legitimacy—consent. Political disorder is disturbing—people need order so that they can function normally. In some cases, then, the people give up their own authority and set aside their political ideology in order to return to a normal existence. Dictators seize on this phenomenon, and often promise the restoration of order, in return for legitimization of their rule. If the tyrant succeeds in restoring and maintaining order, he may gain the temporary consent of the people. If he achieves this, he will need to use less direct force.

Charisma: Real and Manufactured Charismatic leadership as described famously by Max Weber,33 is a socialpsychological phenomenon wherein a leader—through personal charm, brilliant oratory, and an outstanding forceful personality—excites a strong following. The

32

Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, London, Penguin Classics, 1950. Max Weber, Economy and Society “Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich”, New York, Academic Press, 1961.

33

136

16 The Emergence of Tyranny Without Traditional Kingship

followers are “charismatized”—that is, they believe that this leader has special qualities beyond the ordinary. Even though Weber calls this, “the gift of grace”—following a Christian church definition—the charismatic leader is not thought of as a “god.” He—or she—is thought of as an exceptional human leader, who will lead the society through a difficult and crisis-filled time—brought on by rapid social change, economic collapse, foreign invasion, or other crisis—engendered factors. Tyrants—dictators—sometimes possess personal charisma—So, too, do some democratic leaders. Pericles of Athens had personal charisma. In the modern world both Roosevelts and John F. Kennedy had charisma. And, Peisistratos of Athens, before Pericles, had charisma, as did Hitler in post-World War I Germany. Let us stay in ancient Greece for the moment. I have mentioned Peisistratos of Athens as having personal charisma. He also had a loyal regiment of military guards who went with him everywhere. He also restored order to revolutionary torn Athens. Yet, personal charisma is never enough. A tyrant is always nervous that the people will rebel, or that an individual may attempt to assassinate him. Therefore, tyrants—dictators—often attempt to enhance their charisma artificially in order to make themselves seen more super human—almost godly. In this regard, Peisistratos, fearing overthrow, hired a tall blonde woman (some say a Thracian), dressed her as the goddess Athena, rode with her in a gilded chariot pulled by beautiful horses. They rode into Athens and were then surrounded by an admiring crowd, who hailed Peisistratos as their leader. This tale is told by Aristotle in The Constitution of Athens,34 and he tells us that with this ploy, he gained the legitimacy he needed to continue his rule. When he died, the Athenians rose up against his sons, who attempted dynastic succession, and murdered the sons. Tyrants are not kings, and dynastic succession rarely works. However, the attempt to enhance personal charisma with manufactured effects was attempted by tyrants of post-World War I Europe, and, as we shall shortly describe, were dramatically successful.

A Word on Tyranny in Rome In early Roman history, according to Polybius35 and Livy,36 kingship was abolished, and an oligarchic-aristocratic Senate ruled. The monarchy had been imported—by conquest—from the Etruscans whose league of city-states had been established to

34

Aristotle, The Constitution of Athens, London, Penguin Classics, 1964. Polybins, Book VI, The History of Rome, NY, Amazon 2006. 36 Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Books I–V, London, Penguin Classics, 1948. 35

A Word on Tyranny in Rome

137

the north of Rome. Both Herodotus37 and Virgil38 tell us that the Etruscans came from Troy after their defeat by the Mycenaean Greeks. In any case, kingship was abolished and denigrated by the Romans. However, though one man rule and all its surrounding manufactured charismatic effects were abolished, during times of military crisis—and such times happened often enough—the Roman Senate elected a “dictator.” The dictator was a military Commander who was given total control of the polity and the army during crisis situations.39 But, the dictator’s term of office was tenure-limited. Once the crisis was over, the dictator had to give up his power and returned to his senatorial position. Over the centuries according to Livy,40 many dictators were appointed, And all but one honored their tenure limitation. The one who wished to become a tyrant was ousted by the Senate. In the long history of Rome, from its founding to the wars with Carthage, no tyrant succeeded in establishing one man’s violent rule. The oligarchic-aristocratic Senate controlled the army. And—perhaps copying Sparta’s institutions of two kings41—two generals of the Spartan army—the Romans instituted two generals called “consuls.” Two consuls were chosen by the Senate, such that they balanced each other and one man control of the Roman army could not occur. [The Iroquois League in North America always elected to war chiefs for a similar reason—and, it worked, there was no paramount chief amongst them,42 although amongst the Powhatan (Algonquin League) to their south, paramount chieftaincy had been institutionalized].43 So, in Rome, with the two consuls, and the limited tenure occasional “dictator,” tyranny did not arise. Yet, in modern language usage, the term “dictator” is used more frequently than the Greek term tyrant. Our modern usage is synonymous with the Greek usage, so that dictator or tyrant are used interchangeably. When Rome conquered the world—that is when they took over the Middle Eastern and Aegean and Mediterranean world which Alexander the Great had already conquered—then a form of tyranny did occur in Rome. As an Empire, rather than a city-state, Rome needed a unifying state structure. Since Alexander’s generals had already turned themselves into divine kings—in Egypt, Syria, and Babylon— ambitious Roman generals sought to follow their lead. Pompeii and Caesar, using their massive Roman armies, sought to override the oligarchic-aristocratic Senate (of which they were members) and turn the consulship into a kingship.

37

Herodotus, Histories, (on Xerxes) London, Penguin, 1951. Virgin, Aneas, London, Penguin, 1952. 39 Polybins, Book VI, The History of Rome, NY, Amazon 2006. 40 Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Books I–V, London, Penguin Classics, 1948. 41 Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. 42 Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society, NY. Amazon, 2012 (1877). 43 Helen C. Rountree, The Powhatan Indians of Virginia, Paperback Amazon, 1992. 38

138

16 The Emergence of Tyranny Without Traditional Kingship

However, the Romans had an aversion to kingship, they had long since banished it and continued to denigrate it. It was the class warfare in Rome which gave the generals their opening. For, unlike the Greek city-states wherein democracy came to flourish, in Rome strict oligarchy—wealth oligarchy, educational superiority, and control of the army— prevented the people from gaining democratic input into government. The people had rioted many times and gained concessions. “Tribunes of the people were popularly elected to sit in the Senate and add the democratic voice to its otherwise oligarchic character.”44 Again, this could have been copied from Sparta, as the “ephors” there played the same role at the council of elders (who were largely selected from old aristocratic Spartan families).45 In Rome, though the tribunes did add a democratic voice, they were often bought off—bribed—to vote with the oligarchs. Numerous democratic revolts occurred because of this—that of the Gracchi brothers,46 being the most famous. The Gracchi brothers, however, were murdered by the Senators, and the democratic demiurge was harshly repressed. The generals of the world—conquering armies used the discontentment of the people to their advantage. Their armies—the Roman Legions—were made up of the working class and poorer Romans. So, the generals, such as Pompeii and Caesar, promised them money, treasure and glory if they backed their bid for tyrannical control. Caesar defeated Pompeii and had him murdered, and then, famously (because of Shakespeare)47 attempted to crown himself king of Rome, but was murdered by the Senators. Caesar’s heir and adopted son, Octavian, then succeeded in repressing the Senators and establishing the Roman Emperorship. Importantly, since the Romans still culturally denigrated kingship, the “emperors” were not quite treated as kings—many were assassinated—family dynasties wiped out—stability never established—legitimacy amongst the Romans very low—the oligarchic Senate remained very powerful.48 But, in the Roman Empire, the conquered peoples of Europe, North Africa, Egypt, and the Middle East, they did recognize the Roman Emperor as legitimate. The Roman Emperors, unlike their Middle Eastern or Egyptian counterparts, did not rule for “the good of the people,” or set out law codes of social justice (like Hammurabi). The Roman Emperors and their local governors essentially pillaged their holdings, and set a terrible moral example with their gladiator fights to the deaths and their hideous “circuses,” wherein wild animals tore people to shreds. Revolts against the Roman Emperors were commonplace in Egypt, Israel, Asia Minor, and Persia.

44

Polybins, Book VI, The History of Rome, NY, Amazon 2006. Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. 46 Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Books I–V, London, Penguin Classics, 1948. 47 William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar. 48 Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, London, Penguin, 1952. 45

The World Beyond Greece and Rome: Divine Kingship Makes Democracy. . .

139

The World Beyond Greece and Rome: Divine Kingship Makes Democracy Inconceivable Still, if kingship was not legitimate to the Romans, it was legitimate everywhere else. At the time of the Roman Empire, the Chinese Empire had become firmly established, with the Emperor ruling with “the mandate from heaven.” Yes, he had meritocratically chosen, Confucian-educated Mandarin officials to guide him—but the Chinese Emperor had absolute power. Similar monarchies emerged in South East Asia. The Persian monarchy was reestablished. Northern India had kings expanding their territory. Central and South America would have divine kings backed by powerful priesthoods dominating the land. Africa had chieftainships morphing into kingship in West Africa49 and South Africa.50 Aside from a few tribal democracies in North America and northern Europe, despotic kingship was sweeping the world. And, of course, in northern Europe, tribal democracy was giving way to chieftainship, and then a more institutionalized kingly state. With the decline of the Greek city-states and the hegemony of Rome, democracy was fading fast from the world. For, once divine kingship becomes fully institutionalized, democracy becomes inconceivable. When Herodotus Tells us that his countrymen—the Greeks (Hellenes) do not believe that the Persian princes had a dialogue about the forms of government, he is telling us that the Persians knew nothing of democracy or oligarchy, but only of monarchy. And, even Confucius—brilliant as he was—could only conceive of monarchy, tempered by his well-educated meritocratically selected officials, but with absolute divinely infused power.51 Yes, Mencins52 and Xun Xi53 debated whether an Emperor should act benevolently or tyrannically, but no other form of government was imaginable to them. Similarly during the Arabic Golden Age, when Aristotle was translated into Arabic, democracy and oligarchy were not suggested by the great Arabic-speaking intellectuals. Only the Muslim Caliphate could be the model of government for them.54 Finally, even Thomas Aquinas,55 obtaining the translations of Aristotle from the Arabic intellectuals, concluded that monarchy—kingship—not “polity,” a mixed form of government containing elements of democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy— 49

Mary Quigley, West African Kingdoms, Google Books, 2010. E.A. Ritter, Shaka Zulu, Amazon, 2003. 51 Confucius, The Analects, NY, Amazon, 2000. 52 Mencius, See Wikipedia, Chinese Philosophers. 53 Xun Xi, See Wikipedia, Chinese Philosophers. 54 Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Philosophy in the Arabic Golden Age, NY, Amazon, 2013; Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Philosophy in the Arabic Golden Age, NY, Amazon, 2013. 55 Thomas Aquinas, Politics and Ethics, London, Penguin Classics, 1950. 50

140

16 The Emergence of Tyranny Without Traditional Kingship

was the best forms of government. He, however, added a caveat (similar to that of Mencius). Kingship was the best form of government if the king did not become a tyrant.56 But, what can prevent a king from becoming a tyrant? “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton57 had it right, “Mencius and Aquinas were trying to tame a tiger.” It looked for centuries as if democracy had been eradicated from the world. Then, with the rediscovery of the entire Greek and Roman body of knowledge during the Italian Renaissance, the idea of democracy and the possibility for democracy arose once again. Remarkably, democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny arose in the Italian tradecapitalist city-states of Renaissance Italy in some sense repeating the history of politics in ancient Greece, but, of course, with many differences, and, with a very different long-term outcome. And, whereas Plato believed that tyranny was the worst form of government,58 Machiavelli would praise it.59 Let us look at the Italian city-states of the great Renaissance of classical learning.

56

Ibid. Lord Acton, “Power Corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.” 58 Plato, The Republic, London, Penguin Classes, 1950. 59 Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, London, Penguin Classics, 1950. 57

Chapter 17

Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny in the Italian City-States

We have already discussed both oligarchy and democracy in the Italian city-states. Here we wish to focus on tyranny. For, the tyranny of the Italian cities—after Machiavelli’s The Prince provided a “handbook for tyrants”—because the model for tyranny—dictatorship—in Europe of the early twentieth century. We have described how the oligarchic rich in the Italian city-states were able to repress the democracy movement. Venice, Genoa, and eventually, Florence, all remained oligarchic in the long run. For, the craftsman and farmers of the Italian Renaissance city-states did not form up into a well-trained heavily armored phalanx the way the Greek middle and working classes did. The Italians were well-trained in their crafts, but military operations were left to the mercenary armies. Since these mercenaries demanded good pay, the wealthy “patricians” were the ones who could pay them. These Italian rich patricians also paid Swiss mercenaries to defend their oligarchic privileges.1 Democracy, as I described, did arise as fully institutionalized in Florence, Bologna, and a few other city-states, but it was overridden by the rich-such as the Medicis in Florence—and did not take root. It is significant that Niccolò Machiavelli was the Foreign Minister of the Florentine Democracy during the few short years of its existence. He knew that to stay in power, the people had to arm themselves. He attempted to arm and train the citizens of Florence to create a strong militia. But, the population of Florence was not large enough to create a strong militia, and, the Italian craftsmen were not militarily oriented the way the Greek citizens were. Machiavelli warned Soderini—the Florentine “Pericles”—that the Medici were paying mercenaries to invade and take back Florence. He advised Soderini to assassinate the Medici and bring in mercenaries of his own. Soderini did not heed Machiavelli’s warnings, and the Medici invaded and took over Florence.2

1 2

Max Weber, The City, NY Free Press, 1951. Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, London, Penguin Classics, 1950.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_17

141

142

17 Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny in the Italian City-States

Soderini fled, but Machiavelli was captured and tortured nearly to death. He was eventually released, but exiled to his estate outside the walls of his beloved Florence. In despair for the loss of both his position and the loss of Florentine democracy, Machiavelli turned to the study of classical Roman and Greek political philosophy. He could read Latin, but he could not read Greek. Hence, he studied the work of Titus Livins, whose History of Rome3 focused on the political structure of Rome, along with its history. He also had friends of his, who could read Greek, read the works of Polybius to him. For, Polybius also described the political structure of Rome.4 Following this study of the classical sources, Machiavellian began work on his own classic, The Discourses on the Work of Titus Livius (Livy).5 In The Discourse, Machiavelli advocated: (1) a government of law; and (2) a “mixed form of government” in which a king acted as chief executive, while an elected House of Representatives balanced the power of the king and set forth legislation. Perhaps no one would ever have read The Discourses—which were based on Machiavelli’s observations of the French government which he visited while Foreign Minister of Florence, and, based also on Livy and Polybius—if Machiavelli had not written The Prince.6 This book made him infamous, and also famous.

Machiavelli and His Handbook for Successful Tyranny Hearing from a friend, he might be able to get a political appointment in Florence from the Medicis, Machiavelli wrote a series of letters to them and to other influential individuals. Somehow he became persuaded that writing a book on how to attain power and maintain power would ingratiate him to the Medici family. Now, during the period of democratic revolution and oligarchic counterrevolution, tyrants had risen to power—as always, in order to restore political order. Such tyrants could emerge as champions of the people, promising democratic reforms, or, the tyrants could emerge promising the oligarchs to protect their wealth and privileges. Machiavelli focused on various tyrants who took power and then maintained their power through direct military force and through psychological terrorization of the population. Though Machiavelli describe the tyrants—such as Cesare Borgia—as violent, murderous, treacherous, and sadistic, he praised them for their willingness to kill all their rivals and terrorize their population into submission. Was this because Soderini

3

Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Books I–V, London, Penguin Classics, 1948. Polybins, Book VI, The History of Rome, NY, Amazon 2006. 5 Niccolò Machiavelli, The Discourses, London, Penguin Classics, 1950. 6 Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, London, Penguin Classics, 1950. 4

Machiavelli and His Handbook for Successful Tyranny

143

had failed to murder his rivals, and Florentine democracy fell? We can’t be sure. What we can be sure of, however, is that Machiavelli was the first political theorist to praise tyranny. Plato had called tyranny the worst form of government—worse than democracy or oligarchy by far. Plato had described how tyrants—inflated by their power—let loose all their worst unconscious desires—like men in a dream, where they murder their best friend and have sex with their mother.7 According to Plato, tyrants were worse than any beast. Aristotle classified tyranny as a perverted form of government, because the tyrant ruled for his own sake, and not for the good of the people.8 Yet, Machiavelli does something quite the opposite of Plato and Aristotle, he not only praises tyranny, but writes an explicit handbook, advising tyrants how to come to power—through treachery and violence—and how to stay in power—through violence, terror, and the creation of grand public works. The tyrants of Italy, such as Machiavelli’s favorite, Cesare Borgia, did not know of Machiavelli’s The Prince. And, the Roman Catholic Church condemned The Prince as inspired by the devil. Machiavelli never got his position back in Florence, and went on to write his diametrically different The Discourses, fully focusing on law and checks and balances on political power. But, the condemnation by the church made Machiavelli’s The Prince all the more intriguing and his fame and his works transcended his life. Of course, the Enlightenment thinkers, such as Montesquieu, were influenced by The Discourses, the laws and the checks and balances on power further developed as central to Enlightenment political theory and the democratic revolutions they would encourage. But, because of his infamy, The Prince was also read as a warning for what tyranny could become—letting loose human violence beyond that of the beasts. During the Era of Enlightenment and the democratic revolutions—the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—Machiavelli’s The Prince was thus read for its negative value, as if Machiavelli wrote it as a warning. Unfortunately, in Italy, Germany, and Spain, in the early twentieth century, during the chaotic transition from monarchy to feudalism to democracy and industrial-capitalism, tyranny rose again to the fore, and, Mussolini read Machiavelli carefully and succeeded by following Machiavelli’s blueprint for coming to power through violence and murder and treachery, and staying in power through military violence and the terrorization of the population. Mussolini’s success generated Hitler’s admiration. He may not have read Machiavelli, but he did not have to—he copied Mussolini’s program to the letter, and, added racism to the hideous brew of violence and terror. Before discussing the worst tyrannies of all time (except for that of Stalin), and their inclusion of the kinds of manufactured charismatic effects heretofore linked

7 8

Plato, The Republic, London, Penguin Classes, 1950. Plato, The Republic, London, Penguin Classes, 1950.

144

17 Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny in the Italian City-States

only with divine kingship, let us look at the period prior to this terrifying era—the period of the English Civil War and the French Revolution.

Chapter 18

Tyranny During the English and French Revolutions: Cromwell, Napoleon and Louis Napoleon

The Renaissance Spreads Northward As the Renaissance spread northward, most of Europe was dominated by powerful monarchies. France, England, Germany, Spain, and the Eastern European countries all were ruled by kings. Italy was not united by a monarchy—only the Roman Catholic Church created some semblance of unification. On the fringes of the European monarchies—in the high mountains of the Swiss Alps and the salt marshes of the Netherlands—tribal democracy survived, for in these areas, heavy armored knights on horseback could not be effectively deployed. After trade-capitalist city-states developed in Switzerland and the Netherlands, the tribal democracy evolved towards representative democracy with constitutional law. We have discussed this already in the chapters on democracy and oligarchy (Chaps. 1–5). We have described these events in greater detail in a previous work, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes City-States, and Nation-States.1 Here we wish to focus on tyranny. For, though the Enlightenment era generated a democracy movement, and also an oligarch form of government (with an ideology of educated and wealth superiority justifying it), tyranny also reemerged during the periods of instability in the traumatic transition from monarchy to democracy or oligarchy. After the Swiss and the Dutch forged their democratic polities—unique to the world because the representative structure allowed for the incorporation of large territories, which previously only monarchies could unite—the British—just across the channel from the Netherlands—became influenced by the events in Holland. The Protestant Reformation spilled over into England and Scotland in its Calvinist form, as in the Netherlands. And, trading cities emerged in Great Britain, following the model set by the Hanseatic League and the Dutch cities. A commercial 1 Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, Springer International Publishing, 2017.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_18

145

146

18

Tyranny During the English and French Revolutions: Cromwell, Napoleon and. . .

money and trade economy arose in England and Scotland, and with it a fascination for science and law. As in the Netherlands, a representative government made up of the new moneyed commercial classes began to dominate economic activity and to increase its political power. We have described the remarkable and unique growth of economic and political power of a new class in Great Britain—the gentry. We described their educated, lawful demeanor, and their desire for oligarchic control over the still powerful monarchy. We also describe the democracy movement, led by craftsmen and small farmers and fueled by a fanatical brand of Calvinist Puritanism. Democracy in the church, as well as in the parliament was demanded by these “Puritan” craftsman and free farmers. Not only did the king have to go, but so too did the church hierarchy of the Church of England. Into this mix of democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, and Puritan fanaticism, a charismatic leader emerged to organize the democratic Puritans into a revolutionary fighting force. Enter Oliver Cromwell: “God’s Englishman.”2

Cromwell as Revolutionary Democrat, Fanatical Puritan, and, Tyrant Cromwell, a virulent democrat and ardent Puritan, and a member of the lesser gentry, organized “the new model army.”3 This army was made up of artisans and free farmers fighting for democratic reforms and reform of the Church of England. The English knights and the English king thought they would win an easy victory over Cromwell’s army. However, unlike the knights and kings of Spain, Germany, and Austria, who were fighting continuous wars with each other, the Turks, and the Arabs, the English knighthood was living a luxury lifestyle and had lost their edge. These “cavaliers” went into battle in their finery, partying as they went. Cromwell’s determined, religiously encouraged army defeated them in rather short order. Once this defeat occurred, Cromwell and his Puritan democrats took the capital, and arrested the king. Even after his capture, Charles continued to plot to restore his absolute power. Eventually, Cromwell gave in to pressure from the democrats of his army, and King Charles was beheaded. With the king dead, the monarchists kept plotting to restore an heir. Not only that, but the well-educated snobbish gentry began demanding that Cromwell establish an oligarchy, so that they—the better educated gentlemen—could rule in parliament,

2 3

Christopher Hill, God’s Englishman: Oliver Cromwell, Google Books, 2001. Ibid.

Cromwell as Revolutionary Democrat, Fanatical Puritan, and, Tyrant

147

and the democratic and fanatically Puritan “rabble” should go home and cease their protestations.4 If that was not enough, radical communist—The Levelers—began demanding that Cromwell use the power of the army to confiscate and redistribute the land of the rich to all the people equally.5 Monarchists, the gentry rich oligarchists, communists—it was all too much for Cromwell to cope with. In order to ensure that democratic representation in parliament would continue, and that neither oligarchy nor monarchy would triumph, he declared himself “Lord Protector.” Cromwell became a tyrant, using the power of his New Model Army to keep order and maintain democratic political norms. Cromwell was indeed a tyrant, but in the beginning he was relatively benign in his use of military power. He had a few of the Leveler leaders executed, but allow the leader of the movement to go free and dispersed the rest to the countryside. He allowed the gentry representatives to remain in parliament, as long as they allowed the artisan and farmer democrats to keep their seats as well. Monarchist plots were thwarted—with exile of the aristocrats their punishment.6 All in all Cromwell’s was a benign dictatorship. . .until he invaded Ireland with his army of Puritan fanatics. In Ireland, when the Irish refused to convert to Protestantism, Cromwell allowed—encouraged—his army to commit atrocities. The Irish were slaughtered, terrorized, and repressed, before Cromwell gave up and brought the army back to England. So, in Ireland Cromwell became a violent tyrant, Plato’s warnings becoming fulfilled. Still, it must be emphasized that within England—with anarchy raging and monarchists and oligarchs plotting the overthrow of democratic government— Cromwell’s rule was quite restrained. When Cromwell died, his New Model Army was dispersed, and all hell broke loose again: oligarchs grabbed control of Parliament; democrats fled to North America by the thousands; and the monarchists had competing heirs ready to recapture the throne and establish absolute power again. Many years of anarchy went by until finally, in 1688, the oligarchs and monarchists established a compromise form of government. Inspired by the Dutch, whose Republic originally had a “stadtholder”—a monarch with constitutionally limited powers, with a Parliament of oligarchs and democrats—the English gentry-oligarchs brought over from Holland, William of Orange—the young relative of the original

4 Eduard Bernstein, Cromwell and Communism, Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution, 1885. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.

148

18

Tyranny During the English and French Revolutions: Cromwell, Napoleon and. . .

stadtholder, William of Orange I—married him to Mary Tudor—heir to the English throne—and established William and Mary as constitutionally limited monarchs.7 The English Parliament was then run by the gentry, as a legal oligarchy with defined wealth and land qualifications. We have discussed all of this in our sections on oligarchy and democracy. What we wish to emphasize here is that Cromwell became the first tyrant of the post-Italian Renaissance era. He was the first, but, of course, he would not be the last, as the transition from feudalism and monarchy to industrial-capitalism and democracy would be a difficult and chaotic process in many European nations. And, in praise of Cromwell, he was a relatively benign tyrant. In New England— especially Connecticut and Massachusetts—his name rings out on street signs and towns and on the first US warship. His name being symbolic for democratic and Puritan values. While in gentry-dominated England—where the gentry wrote the history—Cromwell’s name and reputation are denigrated.

The French Revolution and Napoleon Unlike Cromwell, Napoleon was not the leader of a democracy movement. Nor was he aligned with the French merchants pushing for an oligarchic parliament. And, although he famously crowned himself as “Emperor,” he was not aligned with the monarchists either. He was, as is well known, a general in the French army. Emerging as the man who could restore political order, as the Reign of Terror of Robespierre and the radical democrats was ending, he utilized his position as leader of the army to gain power. Napoleon did not use the army to repress the people, the oligarchs, or the aristocrats. What he did was, he used his position to recruit hundreds of thousands of poor men into the army. By providing them with beautiful uniforms, good food, excellent military training, and the most up-to-date military weaponry, Napoleon drew “the mob” off the streets of Paris and the other large cities into his Grande Armée.8 Donning the crown and magnificent clothing he preempted the monarchists. Then, by adopting the mantra of the democrats—“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”— he co-opted them. Needing vast amounts of money for his military aspirations, he protected the wealth of the commercial class in France. Then, rather than turning his tyranny on his own people, he turned his military power outward. His idol was Alexander the Great, his goal to conquer the world. In lightning strikes against Italy and Spain, he defeated them. Then, turning his mass, gun and canon is equipped Grande Armée on Prussia and Austria—whose

7 Ronald M. Glassman, The Future of Democracy, Netherlands, Springer International Publishers, 2017. 8 Adam Zamoyski, Napoleon: A Life, Amazon (New and Used), 2000.

The French Revolution and Napoleon

149

armies were well-trained, but still basically feudal in equipment and tactics, he defeated them decisively and rapidly as well. Because of his tyranny, thousands died—but they died in battle, and they died on foreign soil. Within France, Napoleon’s tyranny was benign. He was loved, not feared, Machiavelli notwithstanding. France, however, though now orderly—the violence had fully ended—was still divided—democracy, oligarchy and monarchy still stood as unresolved phenomena in France. With political order restored, the economy took off: commercial activity flourished in the cities strengthening the oligarchic elements; the aristocrats reconstituted their economic positions by focusing their countryside estates towards the production of fine wines, and later, magnificent perfumes, and luxury clothing. The working classes who favored democracy, however, suffered. The Industrial Revolution had not yet emerged for the workers and farmers who crowded the cities during the revolutionary era—they remained wretched and poor—“Les Miserables” as Victor Hugo9 would call them—more a lumpen proletariat then a proletariat, in Marxian perspective. No wonder that the socialist movement emerged, for political democracy was not enough, when such economic misery persisted. So, while Napoleon was fighting his wars of world conquest, nothing was resolved politically in France, and the economy was worsening for the working poor, while enriching the aristocracy and the trade-capitalist rich. With the disastrous Russian campaign and the death and decimation of his Grande Armée, Napoleon’s tyranny lost its power. Regrouping and re-recruiting, Napoleon put together a new army—but it was not grand. He lost, of course, at Waterloo, and ended up in exile for the rest of his life. With nothing resolved in France, anarchy, chaos, and violence reemerged. The revolution of 1848 was as inconclusive as that of 1789. Again the democrats, oligarchs, and monarchists failed to compromise. And, so, again a tyrant was turned to for order. After a series of unsuccessful tyrants, Louis Napoleon won temporary support. Marx’s famous saying, “History respects itself: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce,”10 was generated by the two tyrannies of France. And, yes, Louis Napoleon was a comic figure. Trading on the name of his illustrious forebear, he attempted to restore order in France. but, he was not the general of the army. In fact, he had no power at all. Anarchy and chaos returned, now with a powerful socialist movement uniting the lower classes, along with the democracy movement, and, with the French aristocrats—having gained a strong commercial component— joining forces with the oligarchic merchants of the cities. Both the “Paris Commune”11 and its violent repression left France unstable and uncertain politically into the twentieth century.

9

Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, NY, Amazon, 2012. Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. 11 John Merriman, The Paris Commune: Life and Death, Amazon, 2000. 10

150

18

Tyranny During the English and French Revolutions: Cromwell, Napoleon and. . .

But, if Louis Napoleon was the “farce,” the first Napoleon was not the tragedy— senseless wars of conquest had occurred throughout human history. No, the real tragedy was yet to come, as Italy, Germany, and Spain failed in their transitions to industrial capitalism and democracy.

Chapter 19

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century: Fascism and Nazism, Mass Mobilization and Mass Murder

Italy and Mussolini Many dictators have arisen in the modern world, few have read Machiavelli. Mussolini, however, certainly did. Mussolini would follow Machiavelli’s advice to the letter, on, how to come to power and how to maintain one’s power. Mussolini learned from Machiavelli that he needed a loyal army regiment and a bodyguard contingent; that he needed the will to kill all his enemies—kill them at once; that he needed to terrorize the population into submission once he had attained power, in order to prevent rebellion against him; that it was better to be feared than loved—so show force and violence as your character—but you should be admired, so give to the people and build for the people. Importantly for us in this treatise, Mussolini added a whole new dimension to his tyranny—a dimension that was not discussed by Machiavelli in The Prince. That is, Mussolini added manufactured charismatic effects1 to his tyranny, plus an ideology of national superiority—in this case, linked to Italy’s Roman and glorious past. The manufactured charismatic effects utilized by Mussolini, along with the revival of Roman glory and Roman world dominance, added an element of legitimation to his tyranny. This was no longer a tyranny based on personal charisma and direct military violence, but rather a tyranny surrounded by the trappings of grandeur, so magnified as to rival that of the divine kingships. Let us look at both the Machiavellian violence, treachery, and terror, and then the manufactured charisma that surrounded Mussolini’s tyranny with the aura of legitimacy which tyrannies usually cannot develop. For, this process of legitimate authority for tyrants would be emulated in a dramatic way by many of the tyrannies of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

1 Ronald M. Glassman and William Swatos, Jr., Charisma, History and Social Structure, NY Praeger, 1981; see also, Arthur J. Vidich and Ronald M. Glassman, Conflict and Control: Challenge to Legitimacy of Modern Governments, Greenwood, 1980.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_19

151

152

19

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century: Fascism and. . .

A word on the conditions in Italy first, because the problems in Italy at the turn of the twentieth century mirrors those facing so many nations emerging afterwards. The problems facing Italy were threefold: Italy was not a unified nation; Italy had to choose a form of government—democracy, oligarchy, or monarchy; Italy had to develop an industrial economy—capitalist, socialist, communist? Let us look at each of these. Again Machiavelli: at the end of his book, The Prince,2 Machiavelli implored the Italians to give up their separatism and city competition, and unite into one nation. He warned that if they did not unify Italy, they would be invaded and come under the control of the French, the Spanish and the Holy Roman German Kings. The Italians did not unify, and did become dominated by the European monarchies. Weak and disunified up through World War I, Italy was a laughing stock in Europe. Italy’s miserable showing in World War I generated a national movement for the unification of Italy, with its capital, of course, at Rome. Rome had been the center of the Catholic Church and Papal power, but it had not been the capital of a unified Italy since ancient times. Rome became the capital of modern Italy, but how to unify? The Italians chose the British model: a limited monarchy and an elective parliamentary democracy. But who would be king? The Italians had no royal family. They chose Victor Emmanuel, a revered statesman from an old aristocratic family. He served as a unifying symbol for the nation. But, he had little power as a limited monarch. The problem was, that unlike England, where two parties had a long tradition of debating and compromising, Italy generated many parties, and they argued violently and refused to compromise. Two large parties finally did emerge: the Socialists and the Christian Democrats. Even so, the differences between them remained enormous and legislation remained frozen. Furthermore, the regions of Italy remain separated strongly—even when the parliament in Rome passed legislation, it was impossible to enforce in many of the regions which did not recognize the authority of the government in Rome. And, as for southern Italy—the region from Naples to Sicily—they not only refused to recognize Rome’s authority, but they did not even consider themselves part of the new Italian nation. So, Italy was still not unified as a nation-state, and, though the form of government had been agreed upon, the parliamentary democracy with a limited monarchy, was ineffective—its authority was not yet legitimated in many parts of Italy. As bad as the situation was, the economy was in worse condition. Italy of the Renaissance, had one of the great craft economies of the world. Along with ancient China, Egypt, and Greece, Renaissance Italy excelled in the world at producing stunningly beautiful art, architecture, music, clothing, shoes, jewelry, metal goods, and more. The crafts of Renaissance Italy were a wonder to the world. So, too, was its science, technology, and philosophy.

2

Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, London, Penguin Classics, 1950.

Mussolini and Machiavelli

153

By the twentieth century, however, Italy had fallen behind in science, technology, and philosophy. And goods were now manufactured by machines in giant factories. Italy’s craft economy was now obsolete. Thus, along with political unification and the establishment of a legitimate form of government, which functioned effectively, Italy needed to develop an industrialcapitalist economy. Italy needed factories and banks—manufacturing and finance in their modern iterations. The weak, ineffective government in Rome had little influence on economic matters. Both big parties encouraged factory production, machines, and modern banking. The Socialists championed the emerging working class, while the Christian Democrats backed big business and banking. Industrial economic growth, however, was slow to develop.

Mussolini and Machiavelli Mussolini, following Machiavelli’s script, used treachery to gain a leadership position in the Socialist Party. Convincing the Socialists that he was a man of the working class, working for the working class, he was elected to a leadership position in the party. Once in power, however, he turned on the Socialists, arrested their leadership and murdered any of them who persisted in their opposition to him. And, he did this immediately, as Machiavelli advised in The Prince. Then, still following Machiavelli’s script, he had his personally loyal regiment of armed men carry out a campaign of terror throughout Italy. Any man who opposed him was captured and tortured—his family arrested as well—the women raped in front of the rebellious men, the men stuffed with cod liver oil until they sickened and soiled themselves. The men would be tortured and executed, the women sent back to their village or neighborhood to tell their tale of terror and frightening their neighbors into acquiescence. So, Mussolini was “feared, rather than loved,” as Machiavelli had written he should be. But, Machiavelli also wrote that the leader—the tyrant—should be admired by the people, so he must build things for them to gain their praise. This Mussolini did on a grand scale. Italy needed industrialization and modernization of the infrastructure. Mussolini encouraged the Northern Italians of Milan and Turin to expand their already functioning factory systems. He hired engineers and managers to build railroads and electrification systems linking Italy together in a modern way. He ordered the refurbishment of Rome so that it could become a real capital city in its modern incarnation—while the ancient Roman Forum was cleared up for tourists and modern Italians to see and to revel in the glories of ancient Rome. All of this worked. Mussolini was both feared and admired. Machiavelli’s “handbook” on how a tyrant should come to power and stay in power had proven accurate.

154

19

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century: Fascism and. . .

Yet, this was not enough for Mussolini, for much of the Italian population was still skeptical, and regionally oriented. Therefore, Mussolini orchestrated a grand campaign of manufactured charismatic effects, along with the promulgation of a new ideology—an ideology of national superiority—an ideology conjuring up the glories of the Roman past. Roman superiority, Roman world conquest, Roman military might, and Roman brilliance in building and engineering—all these attributes of ancient Rome—the Roman Empire—were revised in the context of the modernization and unification of Italy, and, focused around Mussolini’s leadership as emphasizing the Roman willingness to use military force and direct violence to conquer the world and hold on to the Empire. The first thing Mussolini did was he expanded his personal regiment into a massive army of regiments. He gave this new army—which was loyal only to him—like a new Roman Emperor—excellent military uniforms, newly manufactured Italian-made guns, fancy boots and military trim, and most importantly, a new Roman insignia—pinned on in gold—“The Fascisti.” This symbol was derived from the ancient Roman symbol of a shift of arrows in a golden cord. This fascist symbol gave its name too Mussolini’s movement—the “fascists” were the modern-day Romans—willing to kill, bent on conquest, and unifying the nation.

Manufactured Charisma and the Beginnings of Totalitarian Mussolini, once he had expanded his military regiments and made them look impressive and powerful, went far beyond Machiavelli’s handbook. He organized mass rallies of fascist supporters coming together in the main plazas of every city in Italy. His well-trained, well-coordinated troops marched into the midst of these rallies and maintained order, frightening all spectators into at least temporary submission. Then he utilized the new technological communications equipment of his time: microphones, to project his voice to the large crowds at these fascist gatherings; radio to project his message to the nation; and films to inflate these dazzling performances into the realm of super human fantasy—something films do so well. During his mass performances, and in the films of them, he added the “Roman salute”—one’s fist pounding one’s chest when hailing the leader, Mussolini. Radio, films, microphones in crowded piazzas—they helped create the manufactured charismatic effect of a Roman revival—and Mussolini was the new Caesar. Not only was Italy stunned and excited by these mass media charismatizing effects, but the films—shown in all the modern nations—excited and frightened all the non-Italians who saw them. Both Mussolini’s Machiavellian rise to power, and, his remarkable mass mediated manufactured charismatic program became the model for those with dictatorial

Fascist Manufactured Charisma Rivals Divine Kingship as a Legitimation System

155

aspirations in Europe. Importantly, his fascist movement, which promised national unification and economic modernization, became an ideological mass movement effecting the world’s politics. For, the need for national unification and economic modernization transcended Italy, and spilled over into Germany, Spain, even France, and all the way to Japan as well. And, this spectacular mass movement, with its enhanced mass mediated charismatic effects, became the first movement ever to rival divine kingship in its displays of power and splendor and ideology of superiority. Mussolini’s fascism was not just tyranny—it was not just ruled by one man using direct military force to come to power and stay in power. No, this was a new form of government, for it generated a new form of legitimacy—legitimate authority generating consent from the people by utilizing the modern mass media and combining these media with the manufactured charisma generated heretofore by divine kings. When the Kings went out, and, they were surrounded by their army—mounted on horses, adorned with fancy armor and helmets—the kings riding in spectacular carriages and living in luxurious palaces and wearing jeweled and gilded clothing and crowns.

Fascist Manufactured Charisma Rivals Divine Kingship as a Legitimation System Mussolini and his fascists wore gilded uniforms, marched in perfect lockstep, and awed the people with displays of military power and spectacular public works. Like the kings, the power seemed superhuman; like the kings, they symbolized the nation; and, like the kings, they killed anyone who opposed their power or their pomp and their superhuman claims of legitimate authority. Horrifyingly for those who favor democracy and lawful government, this new form of tyranny, which became widespread in the modern world, had the same effect as divine kingship: where it took hold: democracy was repressed and denigrated and wiped from the political sphere. Dictatorship, magnified with monarchial splendor and displays of military power, became the only forms of government discussable. Lastly, Mussolini’s nationalist ideology, in Italy linked with ancient Rome and its glory, in other countries would be linked with their national heritage, and whatever glory they could find in it. This nationalism, when parochialized, became like “tribalism,” and when further focused, became racist. Of course, this brings us to Germany.

156

19

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century: Fascism and. . .

Hitler and Germany Hitler was impressed with Mussolini’s fascism. He copied it. He organized a personal army, gave them well-trimmed uniforms, adapted the Roman Empire glorification to German cultural glorification—the Viking tribes, the Teutonic Knights, the conquest of Rome. The swastika took the place of the fascisti, the Roman salute became the “Heil Hitler” salute—all of it was copied from Mussolini’s system. Further, like Mussolini, Hitler fashioned his party as Socialist—“National Socialist”—Nazi Party. Like Mussolini he promised to unify all of the German states, including his home state, Austria, into one mighty nation. He used treachery to get himself appointed Chancellor when von Hindenburg could not rule effectively. And, he murdered all rivals immediately upon taking power. He turned on the Socialists and Communists, jailing their leaders—as Mussolini had. And, he sought alliance with the German industrialists in order to expand Germany’s manufacturing base, rebuild Germany’s military (which had been blocked by the Versailles Treaty after World War I), and modernize Germany’s infrastructure. The expansion of his personally loyal army into the S.S. Elite Corps, and the terrorism of the population through secret police arrests, S.S. public executions by firing squad, and, of course, the confiscation of Jewish property and the rounding up and deportation of the Jews. The horrific events of the Holocaust3 are too painful for me to describe; but the persistence of Holocaust survivors has kept the memory of the Holocaust alive. In this treatise, we wish to emphasize two phenomena: (1) the most massively successful campaign of manufactured charismatic effects in the modern world— utilizing microphones, radio, films, and choreographed mass demonstrations surpassing those of fascist Italy in size and organization; and (2) the development of totalitarian social and political control of the lives of all of Germany’s citizens. This totalitarianism went far beyond anything Mussolini had attempted, and, unfortunately, became a model which other modern tyrannies attempted to emulate. Both Stalin and Mao Tse-tung attempting totalitarian control over the everyday lives of all their people. And, in China today, in the year 2020, Xi Jinping in China is attempting to establish totalitarianism there. Let us look at each of these remarkable and frightening political phenomena. In terms of manufactured charisma, Hitler and his Nazi party officials attempted to enhance Hitler’s tyranny with massive displays of regimented military power, and larger-than-life symbols of Nazi superiority. Remember that neither Hitler nor Mussolini were impressive specimens in their own appearance. In order to enhance their stature, they did what the divine kings had done for so many centuries. They surrounded themselves with military regiments, wherever they went, and created an aura of power through magnificent pageantry and unifying symbols of cultural 3

There are Holocaust Museums in Israel, Washington, DC, and New York City.

Hitler and Germany

157

identity. Leni Riefenstahl4 was given the task of filming these Nazi mass pageants. Her film, Triumph of the Will, shows these mass demonstrations, with the crack regiments and the Nazi flags flying everywhere—and her film shows that the German people were absorbed into this legitimation process. They came to adore Hitler, to admire his strength in his organizational ability. Of course, they feared him—anyone who acted against him was arrested and shot—but the Germans also loved Hitler—Leni Riefenstahl shows them as overcome with positive emotions, saluting vigorously, throwing flowers and kisses towards him, and fully caught up in the excitement of being part of the Third Reich.5 The German people gave their consent to the Nazi regime—the manufactured charismatic effects worked, and, the German economy was booming—pardon the pun—once Hitler ordered the factories to produce war equipment in massive amounts. Mussolini never achieved the kind of adulation and full-fledged consent that Hitler did. For, Italy was far more divided regionally, and Italy’s economy was not a fully developed industrial economy. Still, Mussolini ruled until World War II destabilized Italy, and Mussolini did not lose his legitimacy until Germany invaded Italy and showed Italy’s weakness. Hitler, unlike Mussolini, retained the consent of his people to the end—to the death. Before we discuss totalitarianism, we need to point out one further factor in terms of the legitimacy process of these modern tyrannies. That is, once the majority of the people lend their consent to a tyrant, and, that tyrant creates the spectacular manufactured charismatic effects enhancing his legitimacy, then the people get so caught up in the excitement of the pageantry that they tend to block out the acts of violence the tyrants our engaging in. They fear the dictator, so they know they could be the next to be arrested, tortured and killed. But, on the massive scale of the murdering, the majority of the population suspend their belief—they deny emotionally that anything like that could be happening. The Italians when asked by foreign observers about Mussolini’s violence, would say, “Well, he made the trains run on time.” Today, in Beijing, the Chinese say, concerning the hideous repression of the Muslim Uyghurs “Well, they were terrorists.” And, of course, in Germany, the generation who were emotionally absorbed into the Nazi ideology and social programs, denied that the Jews were killed or the Gypsies (Romani) disappeared. The Graeb Memorandum6 is a testament to this. Graeb, a German army officer, visiting a relative whose post was at a concentration camp, could not believe what he saw. When he saw that the Jews were being systematically killed, he fled across the Leni Riefenstahl, Film: “Triumph of the Will”. Ibid. 6 The Graeb Memorandum, Google. 4 5

158

19

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century: Fascism and. . .

border to Switzerland and tried to tell the world. Significantly, he did not believe the Jews were being killed until he saw it with his own eyes. And, the Swiss authorities and foreign journalists remained skeptical—not really wanting to believe it either. Humans, in all societies, are brought up to be morally good individuals, and not break the laws or engage in violent acts. However, these modern tyrannies, by utilizing mass mediated charismatic effects—along with military and police direct intimidation—can absorb the citizens into this “false” legitimation process—“false” in the same sense as kings were not really divine—and once the citizens are so absorbed, they grant their consent and block out the immoral and violent acts of the dictatorships.

Hitler Adds Racism to the Nazi Ideology: Mass Murder and Genocide Mussolini was not a racist. Like the ancient Romans, anyone who pledged allegiance to his government were recognized as Italian citizens. The ancient Romans extended citizenship to all conquered peoples, and Mussolini did the same. Hitler, as is well known, had an obsession with the Jews—they got into the colleges and art schools, and he did not. When the Germans needed a scapegoat for losing World War I, Hitler gave them the Jews—it was their fault the Germans lost. The “big lie”7 worked, and though the German people did not believe that Hitler would actually exterminate the Jews, he almost succeeded in doing so. We focus on “racism” because in the twenty-first century, the mass immigrations from developing nations have generated racist ideologies once again. And Hungary, Poland, and even in Great Britain, racism is on the rise. Anti-immigration racism has exploded in the USA as well, mocking the poetic words on the Statue of Liberty and throwing the USA into a political turmoil. But, racism was not a part of Mussolini’s tyranny, as mentioned, and it was not part of the Communist tyrannies that emerged in Russia, the Soviet Union, and China. Now, however, racism has become part of a new world trend toward tyranny. We shall discuss this soon.

7

Joseph Goebels, The Big Lie, Nazi Propaganda, Jewish Virtual Library, Google.

Chapter 20

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century: Communism— Utopian Dreams and Totalitarianism Reality

Utopian Dreams: Karl Marx Communism and Socialism emerged as ideas during the Enlightenment—specifically after the French Revolution. Visions of a rationally constructed, utopian society emerged with the scientific revolution, as the French intellectuals sought to replace the “Ancien Regime”—traditional monarchy—with something better. Saint Simone1 condemned the old monarchy, showing it to be irrelevant to modern economic and political life. And, then Comte2 founded a new science of society—Sociology—which he hoped could lead to a rationally constructed utopian society in the future. With democracy unstable, capitalism and industrialism not yet established, and the dictatorship of Napoleon gone with the loss of his “Grande Armée,” the left over bureaucrats of the French State managed to keep France functioning as a nation. The idea of state socialism3 arose from this phenomenon: the state officials would run the economy, and, distribute its goods equally amongst the people. The idea of state socialism was powerful, and it culminated with the Paris Commune of 1871.4 In Germany, socialist ideas spread rapidly from France, and by 1848 were motivating intellectuals and students at the universities. Enter Karl Marx. A German Jew assimilated to the high culture of Germany, Marx began, as is so well known, as a young Hegelian. But whereas Hegel saw the motivating causality for progressive change in “all of history” as a spiritual phenomenon—the zeitgeist5—focused on religious and then scientific worldviews—Marx, “standing 1

Henri de Saint-Simon, Against Monarchy, Founding Father of Sociology, Wikipedia. August Comte, Positivism, Google Books, 2000. 3 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon on State Socialism, Wikipedia. 4 John Merriman, The Paris Commune: Life and Death, Amazon, 2000. 5 George Hegel, The Philosophy of History, NY Amazon, 2011. 2

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_20

159

160

20

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century:. . .

Hegel on his head,” saw the progressive changes of “all of history” as stemming from material causalities—economic and technological improvements in the human quest to control and harness “nature” to our needs.6 Forced to flee to France after a failed student led socialist uprising in Germany, Marx became learned in the socialist theorizing prominent in France at that time. Forced to flee to England, after a crackdown in France on the socialists, Marx teamed up with Engels, and together, they wrote The Communist Manifesto.7 Marx’s vision was utopian—he rejected the small scale “utopian socialist” communes as throwbacks to the agrarian past. His vision was for a large scale nation-state, with a state of the art industrial economy. It was a utopian vision because he postulated an industrial-factory economy run by committees of workers and technicians. The capitalist business class would be eliminated; the banks would be eliminated; the stock market would be banned. The Communist society was to have a fully developed industrial economy, whose produce would be equally distributed to all the people of the nation. There would be no class distinctions, and no gender distinctions. Women would be liberated and provided with free state nursery schools, as Plato had suggested in his Republic,8 in Ancient Greece. No class distinctions, no racial distinctions, no gender distinctions, and, of course, no capitalism. And as for the form of government, Marx believed that once class distinctions were removed, a pure democracy could be formed—not an oligarchy of the rich, as existed in England during Marx’s residency there, but real democracy, where all the people had the vote—including women—and local and national representative assemblies would make policy. Full-fledged “people’s democracy”—this sounds wonderful—John Stuart Mill, writing around the same time in England, was saying something similar.9 But, Marx made a fatal mistake. Unlike Mill who championed a Bill of Rights and government by law, Marx postulated an intermediary political institution between capitalist oligarchy and Communist democracy: the “temporary dictatorship of the Communist Party,” intellectuals ruling in the name of the proletariat.10 Once the Communist economic stage was reached, the state would “wither away,” and the people would rule themselves democratically. The problem is that dictatorships don’t wither away, they tighten their grip on power.

Karl Marx, Collected Works, “The Stages of History.” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, International Publishers, 1949. 8 Plato, The Republic, London, Penguin Classes, 1950. 9 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, London, Penguin Classics, 1950. 10 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, International Publishers, 1949. 6 7

Utopian Dreams: Karl Marx

161

John Stuart Mill had read John Locke11 and understood that power must be limited, for as Lord Acton would later write, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”12 Marx focused on the second section of Locke’s second treatise on Civil Government—the section wherein Locke attempts to justify class distinctions in wealth— and in his life, joined the oligarchy which his own father had fought against as a member of Cromwell’s New Model Army. Locke’s father fought for democracy, Locke justified oligarchy, Marx rejected Locke’s economic arguments, and, unfortunately rejected Locke’s warning about power invested in a sovereign government. No limitations of power were included by Marx in his vision of the temporary dictatorship of the Communist Party. This, of course, led to the Stalinist totalitarian tyranny. One further problem with Marx’s Communist vision. Marx envisioned his Communist utopia as the final stage of history. However, he assumed that the industrial-capitalist stage of history had been reached before the industrial-socialist stage could be established. Therefore, when the Russian delegation at the International Communist meetings (usually in Switzerland or Belgium) told Marx and Engels that in Russia they could skip over the capitalist stage and establish the socialist stage, Marx ridiculed them. He told them that was impossible because in Russia they produced no industrial goods—so, if you share nothing equally, you all have nothing! Marx was correct. An industrial factory system must be created before you can socialize it. After Marx’s death, when the Russian Revolution occurred in 1917, Lenin and Trotsky discovered that they did have to establish an industrial-factory system before they could establish the Communist utopia. Marxism-Leninism was developed, in which a program for rapid industrialization and infrastructure modernization was undertaken. Grade schools, high schools, colleges and universities emphasizing science, mathematics, and engineering were established. Electrification, roads, hospitals, cities—all were established. Heavy industry and a weapons program were established. Marxism-Leninism became a program for rapid industrialization and modernization for nations which had not undergone the industrial-capitalist revolution. And, Marxism-Leninism worked in what it set out to achieve.

11 12

John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, London, Penguin Classics, 1951. Lord Acton, “Power Corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.”

162

20

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century:. . .

Marxism-Leninism: As a Model for Rapid Industrialization The success of Marxism-Leninism in Russia during the first 10 years was remarkable. Roads and electrification were built, schools and universities were opened, heavy industry was begun, and military weapons were produced. Science, mathematics, and engineering were successfully developed, and, women were liberated. This Russian “Communist” model for rapid industrialization would be copied after World War II. China and North Korea followed the Marxist-Leninist model closely, and later, Cuba also instituted this Russian-initiated program. Because of the emphasis on weapons production, military equipment, science and engineering, it seemed as if the Communist model for rapid industrialization was a tremendous success. And, when Russia developed the atomic bomb and intercontinental ballistic missiles, it seemed as if Russia had, indeed, skipped a stage of history. What was not noticed was that the state run heavy industrial economy was inefficient. It was not run on a profit, cost-efficient basis. Rather, the government just ordered production and did not care about cost. In the military sphere this did not matter, but when consumer goods were produced, they were costly and poorly made—the government only cared about military weaponry. Still, Sputnik and the Russian space program showed the world that Communism had indeed created an excellent educated system, high level science, and a powerful military. What developing nation would not want to copy that? And, yes, women made up half the doctors in Russia, and were prominent in all the academic disciplines. So, what went wrong? Marx’s failure to heed Locke’s warning about power, and his idea about the “temporary dictatorship” of the Communist Party intellectuals—this is what went wrong. Marx’s experience with dictatorship was skewed by the fact that Napoleon and Louis Napoleon were benign dictators. The first powerful, interested in world conquest, not repression of the French; the second, “a farce”—a man with little power or purpose.13 Marx should have known better, after all he and his fellow students had been arrested and deported by the Kaiser’s police—but even the Kaiser was relatively mild when it came to repression. The true horrors of dictatorship would emerge long after Marx’s death. The temporary dictatorship of the Communist Party in Russia began as a utopian intellectual phenomenon. Under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, repression was kept to a minimum—most of the “White” Russians who were anti-Red fled the country after the Civil War and Revolution.

13

Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.

Economic Problems of Communism

163

Enter Stalin: The Dream Becomes a Nightmare Unfortunately for the world and for Russia, Lenin suddenly died of a stroke. And with no system of democratic electoral choice or checks and balances on power, Stalin murdered his way to the leadership position. Once in power, Stalin followed Machiavelli’s playbook. All rivals were killed, a secret police loyal to Stalin was expanded dramatically, all military officers thought to oppose Stalin were jailed. An era of violence and terror matched only by Hitler’s Nazi Germany exploded in Russia. The utopian dreams of Marx were ignored, while the emphasis on military buildup and scientific advances was increased. Under Stalin, not only was the dictatorship permanent, but now it was horrifically violent—violent in the way that Plato had warned that it could be14—the unconscious mind of the dictator spewing forth its taboos and paranoiac fantasies— everyone was suspected of plotting—Stalin’s own family, his doctor, his generals, all the successful farmers, and more. Stalin went far beyond Machiavelli’s handbook, like Hitler, he took terror and murder to a massive level that even Machiavelli would have thought unnecessary for the establishment of order. So, Marxism—Leninism—“Communism,” though a successful method of rapid industrialization, engendered one of the world’s worst tyrannies, with Stalin’s totalitarian control entangling all of Russia in his mad dreams. World War II intervened, but Stalinism survived the war and remained powerful until Stalin’s death in 1953. And, there were more negatives about Communism. What about the economy? Was it classless? Could it produce high-tech consumer products? No, and no. Let us look.

Economic Problems of Communism Not only was Marx careless in his conception of political power, but he also did not realize that once the Communist Party was in total political power, they would take to themselves more than their fair share of economic wealth. Once the industrial economy was functioning, the Communist Party became an upper-class in themselves. As Djilas described in his book, The New Class,15 the Communist Party members began to accumulate luxury goods, eat fine food, live beautiful apartments, and gain lovely summer homes on the Black Sea. The people had a relatively equal—and low level—of consumer goods—their lifestyle was drab, their diet boring, and their housing inadequate.

14 15

Plato, The Republic, London, Penguin Classes, 1950. Milovan Đilas, The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System, Free Press, 1971.

164

20

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century:. . .

Furthermore, the Communist Party leaders who ran the economy continued to emphasize military and space programs, and neglected consumer goods. The consumer goods that were produced continued to be shoddy in quality and scarce in quantity. Therefore, in terms of the polity and the economy, Communism was proving to be a failure, after its initial spectacular success. From the 1970s to the present, as the capitalist economies advanced to a new high technology stage of creative development, and spewed forth a cornucopia of magnificent consumer goods, Communism could not keep up. Capitalism was producing fancy cars, big screen TVs, computers, smart phones, fascinating fashions, especially in women’s clothing, upscale restaurants of converging world cuisines, and in general, a dazzling lifestyle. There are serious economic and social problems in the capitalist nations, but from the Communist countries, the view was too dazzling to worry about those. Communism collapsed in Russia, in part, because the economy could not jump to the next stage—the high-tech advanced global capitalist stage. Gorbachev tried to upgrade the Russian economy, but he could not do so with the bureaucrats and officials of the Communist Party running it. He therefore decided to end Communism. Unfortunately, when the Communist Party was disbanded, who would run the economy? Russia had no business class. The hope was that with American and EU help and partnership, Russia would develop a high-tech capitalist economy. China was doing just that! But this did not happen in Russia. Instead, when Putin was elected, he gave control of the formerly state-run industries to his friends and former KGB agents. These men knew only power, terror, and dictatorial methods of action. They, unfortunately, applied these terror tactics to the economic enterprises. Businesses and banking are now run like a “gangster” economy. Mafia style terror and murder threaten any banker or businessman who does not do what the new economic managers tell them to do. Are these Russian managers “oligarchs,” “kleptocrats,” “Mafia Dons”—call them what you will, but describe them as part of a new, non-Communist dictatorship in Russia. The government and the economy are run by the Putin clique as if the whole country is a KGB controlled system. The failure of Russian Communism to achieve modern economic and political forms—and the subsequent failure of Communism in China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam, means that Communism is no longer seen as a model for rapid industrialization in the world. The utopian vision of Marx has been replaced with the nightmare vision of Putin and Kim Jong-un.

The Rise and Fall of Communism in China Mao Tse-tung began by following in Lenin’s footsteps, but almost ended in Stalin’s.

Enter Sun Yat-sen

165

China has a long history, and unlike that of Russia, where the monarchy was simply a nastier version of the European monarchies—more repressive because of the influence of the “Golden Horde” of the Mongols16 who controlled Southern Russia for centuries—China had its Confucian system, which along with the ideal of the “benevolent” Emperor, included a “meritocracy” of well-educated officials.17 The Confucian-influenced system of the Emperor and his Mandarin officials was monumentally successful and incredibly long-lived. From approximately 100 BCE to the British conquest in the 1880s, China absorbed all conquerors and enculturated them sufficiently so as to absorb them out of existence. This “Chinafication” worked on the Turks, Mongols, and Manchus, but not on the British and Europeans in the nineteenth century. The Industrial Revolution gave the Europeans, and the Japanese, the first advantage that any society had ever had over China. The British, the Germans, the French, and then the Americans began to introduce industrial production to China—but purely in a colonial way—taking raw materials and giving China little useful in return. The insidious “Opium War”18 further pacified China, which remained under colonial control until after World War I.

Enter Sun Yat-sen Having grown up in Hawaii, Sun Yat-sen had knowledge of American Democracy and capitalism. He, with American support, attempted to establish democracy and capitalism in China. The Chinese did not understand the politics or the economics which Sun and the Americans were attempting to establish. As Samuel Huntington19 would say that, Chinese culture—with its Confucian-Mandarin tradition—was simply too different. Of course, cultures can and do change but Sun Yat-sen died before any change could occur. Sun Yat-sen was succeeded by Chang Kai-shek, his son-in-law. Chang Kai-shek was more of a military leader then a reformer. He built an army, financed by the USA, and began a campaign to unify China under his control. At the same time, a Communist movement, funded by Stalinist Russia, emerged in China. Mao Tse-tung headed this movement. Chang Kai-shek and his American financed army defeated Mao and his Communists, and drove them deep into the West of China. But, before they could be pursued and fully defeated, the Japanese invaded. In 1937–1938, the Japanese defeated Chang Kai-shek and he and his army fled into the South Central area of China.

16

Francis Fukuyama, Origins of Political Order, NY Random House, 2000. Confucius, The Analects, NY, Amazon, 2000. 18 The Opium War: The British purposely addicted the Chinese. 19 Samuel P. Huntington, Culture Against Democracy, Amazon, 2000. 17

166

20

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century:. . .

After the war, with the Japanese driven out, Chang Kai-shek reorganized his army with American support. There was very little American military presence in China, as we focused on Japan and Korea. It was believed by the Americans that Chang would easily take over China, as Mao and his Communists had been soundly defeated before the Japanese invasion. Unbeknownst to the Americans, Mao and his Communist army had been bolstered up by Stalin. Mao now had a well-trained army with Russian military weaponry. Further, during World War II, Chiang’s reputation had declined—he had become harsh and repressive and the Chinese were beginning to reject his leadership. At the same time, Mao and the Communists gained a sterling reputation for having established a community of sharing with no corruption. Thus, when the Civil War began again in 1947–1948, Mao’s forces won a resounding victory over Chang’s forces—to the astonishment of the Americans. “How did we lose China?” Americans in Washington screamed at the State Department. Mao and his Communist Party took over China, backed strongly by Russia. And, even though it was Stalin who trained Mao, he—Mao—acted more like Lenin in the first 20 years of his leadership. That is, Mao and the Communists embarked on a Marxist-Leninist rapid industrialization and modernization program. Roads were built, electrification was installed, schools were built, universities created, hospitals built and staffed. Women were liberated and all class distinctions removed—so radical was this latter program in China, that Mao ordered everyone to wear the same clothing—no gender distinctions, no class distinctions—all wore “Mao jackets” hats and pants. Heavy industry and military weaponry were the focus of the industrial economy emerging. It was Marxism-Leninism all over again, but even more extreme. China was far more underdeveloped then Russia. Russia had been in contact with the European nations since the time of the French Revolution, and Catherine the Great had invited French intellectuals, Dutch farmers, and English industrialists to Russia. Russia had universities and some schools and European-style cities. China had nothing modern, it had been isolated from outside influences since 1450, when the Eunuch Admiral and his huge fleet of ships return from their Indian Ocean voyage to tell the Emperor that China was ahead of the world in everything—which it was at that time.20 The Great Wall had worked to insulate China from outside influences—even Buddhism was resisted fiercely before being grudgingly accepted. So, Mao had a monumental task, and against this background, the achievements of the Communists between 1950 and 1968 were heroic.21

The Eunuch Admiral sailed a massive fleet, 1420–1450 CE. Ronald M. Glassman, China in Transition: Communism, Capitalism, Democracy, NY, Praeger, 1990. 20 21

Mao Goes Totalitarianism

167

Mao Follows the Marxism-Leninism Model China did develop heavy industries—steel, copper, coal—and China did electrify and build roads. A whole school system was initiated from scratch—although the Confucian emphasis on learning as an avenue to upward mobility in the Mandarin bureaucracy was deeply ingrained in China.22 Universities emphasizing Western science, math, and engineering, were built, copying the Russian universities. A huge army with modern weapons was fielded by the Chinese Communists—and they held their own against the Americans in Korea. All in all, Mao’s Leninist program was a miraculous success up into the 1960s. Then, as with post-World War II Russia, the Communist state-run economy failed to keep up with the Western capitalist economies which had gone to a new level of technological advance.

Mao Goes Totalitarianism This is when Mao went totalitarian. The earlier efforts and rapid industrialization required national mobilization, but Mao’s Communist regime was optimistic and enthusiastic. But Mao was getting old, and he demanded more rapid results. “The Great Leap Forward”23 initiated an era of totalitarian organization, with the Chinese population nearly worked to death to achieve Mao’s goal of catching up to the West. Thousands of Chinese died—overworked, underfed, killed in accidents— the Great Leap Forward, based on ancient Chinese work teams—“corvée labor”— did not succeed at all in the age of industrialism. Factories failed, farmlands became exhausted and lost crop yield, dams collapsed. The Great Leap Forward failed. Mao, who is not a paranoid murderer like Stalin, withdrew for a while. When he returned, he tried again—he wanted to “reeducate” the Chinese—remove all elements of the Confucian past, and all Western influences. He wanted to create a pure Communist state—a Marxian utopia. He believed that the young people—not yet tainted with tradition—could be his agents of change. The “Cultural Revolution”24 was begun. Mao urged the young people on—they wore red armbands and traveled all over China. But, what did they do? They burned books, beat up “recalcitrant” teachers, created cultural chaos, and. . . nothing more. The Cultural Revolution was a failure, though the idea of “reeducation,” around since the Korean War, remained part of the Chinese Communist Parties’ program. With the failure of the Cultural Revolution, Mao withdrew again, and turned over the control of the Communist Party to Deng Xiaoping. He had advocated that China

22

Max Weber, The Religion of China, NY Free Press, 1956. “The Great Leap Forward” failed, Wikipedia. 24 “The Cultural Revolution” failed, Wikipedia. 23

168

20

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century:. . .

take, “the capitalist road.” With Mao’s death, China did embark on the capitalist road. What ensued was the fastest growing capitalist economy of all time.

The Capitalist Road Partnering with American and European corporations, and utilizing its vast, hardworking population, China opened capitalist-efficiency oriented factories. No more Great Leap Forward, no more old-fashioned methods. Efficient, profit oriented industrial enterprises, with high technology assists, were established—first, near Hong Kong, in the New Territories just beyond Kowloon,25 then in Shanghai, and all along the coastal region of China. Capitalist banks were established following Hong Kong’s example, and a stock market as well. The American, European, Japanese and Hong Kong Chinese insisted that contract law govern all economic transactions. All the joint capitalist enterprises came under a system of contract law adopted by the Chinese entrepreneurs. Now, unlike Russia, China had had a history of very successful entrepreneurs— not in China, where the Emperor and his Confucian-trained officials ran everything—but in Southeast Asia, and, in the coastal port cities of China which were far away from Emperor and his inland capital. Therefore, the excellence and skill of the Chinese businessmen and corporate managers astonished and delighted the American and European joint venture capitalists. Also, the obedience and hard work of the labor force—and its billion people population—enthralled the Western capitalists, who then utilized this workforce for cheap labor—low wages and high worker output—could you find a better capitalist formula for success? So, we now have the anomaly of the world’s fastest growing capitalist economy, being overseen by the Communist Party government left over from the days of the rapid industrialization. The schools and universities are churning out a very large, well-educated middleclass. And, they are being rapidly absorbed into the capitalist economy. But, along with the growth of this new middle class of professionals and white collar workers, the Chinese universities are also producing scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. This latter group are pressed into government service, developing military weaponry and a space program—again similar to Russia. Unlike Russia, the capitalist consumer economy is booming! The Chinese make smart phones, computers, cars, television sets, copies of fancy women’s fashions, and men’s suits. And, the new middle class can buy condominiums in whole new

25 Ronald M. Glassman, China in Transition: Communism, Capitalism, Democracy, NY, Praeger, 1990.

Xi Jinping Institutes Technological Totalitarianism

169

cities, such as Shenzhen, near Hong Kong. These new cities are springing up all over China, like Chongqing at the mouth of the Yangtze River. Unprecedentedly, the military and space programs run by the Communist government sit side-by-side with the high tech consumer economy exhibiting such incredibly successful companies as Alibaba—the Chinese Amazon. The difference between China and the USA in this regard is that the Chinese government is still a dictatorial government. Though democracy went hand-in-hand with the development of industrial capitalism in Great Britain, the Netherlands, France, and the USA, it has emerged in China—full-blown—without effecting political change. At least, not yet. Remember that democracy did emerge with industrialization in Germany, but it crashed during the Great Depression and loss of World War I. And, Spain, fascist and violent in the 1920s and 1930s, did go democratic once it joined the EU and created a capitalist-industrial economy. So, what about China? With the capitalist consumer economy expanding dramatically, and with the new middle class growing rapidly, it was believed by some optimistic observers that China would become like Hong Kong. When the British left, Hong Kong took off economically, and, adopted British style government—democracy and law were enshrined and the Hong Kong Chinese are fully committed to lawful, democratic government. When China embarked on the capitalist road, the government looked to Hong Kong to show them the way. And, the Hong Kong Chinese did establish the first successful capitalist factories and enterprises in the New Territories. Since Shanghai followed Hong Kong’s model closely, when the Mayor of Shanghai Xi Jinping, was chosen as the new leader of the Communist Party and moved to Beijing, optimistic observers believed that he would continue his liberal policies from Shanghai. They could not have been more wrong. The flaw in Marx’s program leapt out at the world again. The temporary dictatorship of the Communist Party did not “wither away,” instead Xi Jinping strengthened the government’s hold on the people of China. Rather than following the Hong Kong model—which has been remarkably successful, both economically and politically—he is following a geo-political model of world power expansion, and increased totalitarian control over the Chinese population.

Xi Jinping Institutes Technological Totalitarianism Tyranny, not democracy, is being institutionalized in Xi’s China. The new technology—and China is excelling in AI and surveillance technology—is being utilized to monitor the behavior of every Chinese. Xi has gone far beyond Putin, who is dictatorial and repressive, but allows elections and some opposition. Xi has cracked down hard, and is creating a technological totalitarian system in China. So ambitious is the program, that the Chinese government has broken the system of contract law, and stolen patents and technology from the USA and the

170

20

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century:. . .

EU. American and EU corporations have protested these violations of contract law, but the profits are too great to give up, so the Chinese have continued to violate these laws. No one knows whether in the future China will democratize. The new middle class will want freedom, and Hong Kong stands as a model—if Beijing does not invade and destroy it. But, I have written in the section on “The Poor Against Democracy,” that where a nation has a majority poor, as in the Chinese countryside, that poor can be recruited by the government and made into a formidable police force and army loyal to the government. In the case of China, Xi has a massive police force and military with which he can threaten, terrorize, and repress the growing middleclass. Therefore, China may remain totalitarian for a long time. The long-term hope is that when the officials and leaders of the Communist Party are eventually recruited from the college educated middle classes, they will liberalize the government, in the way that Gorbachev26 did in Russia. Yet, Russia, Gorbachev or not, is not democratic. Still, unlike Russia, China has a successful capitalist, high-tech, consumer-oriented economy, and, that economy does run according to contract law—even though the Chinese government violates it. The hope is that law and growing middle-class will become so well-established in China, that Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan will become its future model.27 In the meantime, China is pursuing geo-political power—building ports all over the world, and aircraft carriers to defend them—and increasing the technological totalitarianism within China. With the success of China, why has Communism fizzled out as a world movement for rapid industrialization? A look at the two Koreas can answer that question.

North and South Korea: Communism and Tyranny Versus Capitalism and Democracy We are not here going to present a comprehensive history of Korea. We only wish to establish that North and South Korea had the same culture before the division. Korea had instituted the Chinese Confucian system of government and was heavily influenced by China. In the modern era, Korea had been occupied by Japan, and influenced by Japanese culture up until the Japanese were driven out after World War II. While the USA occupied the South of Korea, the Russians and Chinese influenced the North. When the Korean War ended, the North and South were divided.

26 27

Mikhail Gorbachev initiated Glasnost, Wikipedia. The Four Tigers: Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea.

North and South Korea: Communism and Tyranny Versus Capitalism and Democracy

171

The North Koreans followed Mao’s program for rapid industrialization. However, the Communist Party leader Kim Jong-un, created a dynastic tyranny, more like an emperorship than a Communist Party dictatorship. With the aid of Russia and China, North Korea built up a modern Army with modern weaponry, and, developed a weapons industry. So, they were powerful militarily but, the agricultural economy was not properly modernized, nor was a consumer economy established. North Korea’s economy has failed—without help from Russia and China, more people will starve. The army, of course, is well-fed and is well-clothed, as are the Communist Party officials. Kim Jong-un, the third in the dynasty, rules like an Emperor, and threatens the world with his weaponry. Yet, most of the people of the world know that life is miserable in North Korea for most of its people. Hence, the rejection of Communism by other developing nations. At the same time, South Korea has become another miracle of modern capitalism. Following the Japanese model of industrialization—utilizing giant “Zaibatsu”28 or in Korean “Chaebol,”29 conglomerate corporations, the South Koreans have created a high-tech consumer economy more advanced than that of China. South Korean cars, cell phones, computers and TVs are better than those of the Chinese— they are up to Japanese standards. And, yes, South Korea started with a dictatorial government. The Park Family dominated like a dynasty. Under American pressure, and with the modern economy growing, South Korea finally went over to a democratically elected government. This South Korea democracy was very shaky in the beginning, and looked unstable. Then, with the economy booming into the stratosphere, and a large, well-educated, Western-oriented middle-class emerging, the democracy became stabilized. Now, South Korea stands as a model for capitalist rapid development, and “The Four Tigers” of Asia—Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea—have eclipsed world Communism as better models for development. With the failure of Cuba, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the withdrawal of Russian subsidies, Communism as a world ideology, was dead. Communism is dead, but tyranny lives on. Unless Russia develops an economy based on contract law, instead of gangster violence, and, unless China develops democratic institutions and backs away from totalitarianism, tyranny will continue to stand as a counterpoise to democracy in the modern world of global high-technology capitalism. In the 1990s, it looked like free market capitalism and legal-democracy were the goals that all the world’s nations were moving toward. As Fukuyama stated in the 1990s, standing Marx on his head, it was the “end of history.”30 “Zaibatsu” in Japan. “Chaebol” in Korean. 30 Francis Fukuyama. The End of History and the Last Man. NY: Free Press, 1992. 28 29

172

20

From Tyranny to Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century:. . .

History, of course, has no end, unless because of our inattentiveness to climate change, we kill ourselves off, or, through nuclear war, we blow ourselves to smithereens. More likely, we will go into space, and the “big blue marble” that is Earth will continue to be torn by geo-political nationalism and “tribalism.” Democracies do not go to war with one another, but tyrannies do. So, keeping democracy alive may be the key to keep Homo sapiens alive.

Chapter 21

Totalitarianism: Tyranny Taken to a Terrifying Level Totalitarianism as a New Political Phenomenon

The year 1984 has come and gone, but the specter of “Big Brother”—technological totalitarianism—still haunts us. George Orwell described it,1 Aldous Huxley2 embellished it, and now, will Xi Jinping, and his client, Kim Jong-un, establish it? Hitler and the Nazis invented totalitarianism,3 and later, Stalin attempted to establish it as well. What makes totalitarianism different from ordinary tyranny? The big difference is that submission is not enough; enthusiastic participation in the endeavors of the dictatorial state is demanded of all under its authority.

Repression, Terror and Participation in Nazi Germany Totalitarian dictatorships engage in two programs: (1) like the Divine Kingships, they involve the population in massive building projects and unifying festivals; and (2) unlike the Divine Kingships, these modern totalitarian regimes demand such complete compliance of the population, that they spy on the people to make sure that no one is opposing the regime, and, that everyone is enthusiastically supporting the regime. Repression is not enough, participation is demanded. Without modern surveillance technology, the Nazi regime used neighborhood spies in each district. These spies were linked with the SS elite police, such that any individual who was accused by the spy would be arrested by the SS and interrogated. If found guilty, the individual would be arrested and eventually shot. If found innocent, the individual was set free—but in a permanent state of terror, knowing he or she was being watched.

1

George Orwell, 1984, Signet Classic, 1961. Aldous Huxley, Brave New World. UK: Chatto and Windus, 1932. 3 Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Basic Books, 1955. 2

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_21

173

174

21

Totalitarianism: Tyranny Taken to a Terrifying Level Totalitarianism as a. . .

The system of neighborhood spies worked—the spies were well-rewarded—their identity kept secret as long as possible—and the people in the neighborhood were terrorized into submission. Because of Hitler’s success in stimulating and expanding the German economy, and the early victories in World War II, resistance to Hitler was non-existent, and enthusiastic participation in the totalitarian projects and rallies was remarkable. The entire German society was unified into a nationalistic fervor. The entire nation was absorbed into the totalitarian program, with its ideology of racial superiority for the “Aryan” race—the “blonde beasts” of the North—enthusiastically accepted.4 The complete success of the totalitarian program occurred in Germany before the invention of modern surveillance technology—but modern technology can make the situation worse, as Orwell warned in 1984.5 It should also be noted that the enthusiastic participation in the Nazi totalitarian programs occurred while everything was going well for Germany—the economy was running at full employment, German industry, bolstered by German science, was leading the world in engineering breakthroughs, and Germany invaded and took control of France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and all of Eastern Europe into Ukraine. If one were not Jewish or Gypsy, why would one want to rebel? So, though the Italians turned on Mussolini when their war effort failed and they were occupied by the Germans (and then the Americans), the Germans fought to the death, and not only for Nazi-ism, but also because they were being invaded by Russia in the East and the USA in the West.

Stalin Copies the Nazi Program After World War II, Stalin copied the Nazi program of totalitarianism, with more repression and less enthusiastic participation, in order to rebuild war-torn Russia. We have discussed Communist tyranny. Here we wish to note that totalitarianism emerged in the modern world. And that totalitarianism is not just tyranny. It is tyranny with a grandiose, all-encompassing social program, generating a legitimacy system rivaling the Divine Kingships, and absorbing the people into its programs, beyond merely repressing and terrorizing them. The repression and terror are even worse than under ordinary military dictatorship, and, the whole society is absorbed into an ideological system that is irrational and based on false claims of national, tribal, or racial superiority. If the population buys into these claims, they lend their consent to the regime, and the regime becomes legitimate, like the Divine Kingships, rather than like a military dictatorship.

4 5

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (may not be available). George Orwell, 1984, NY Amazon, 2000.

Technological Totalitarianism

175

This is very worrisome, for democracy is based on reason, rationality, and law. Whereas all reason and rationality are lost when an ideology of natural superiority captures the imagination of the people in a given nation. Let us make the situation worse.

Technological Totalitarianism We are just at the beginning of the amazing, spectacular, and not yet fully understood, technological revolution of the twenty-first century. We are now in a world of computers, smart phones, and AI. These have crafted a new worldwide network of human communication. Our purely human capacity for inter-subjective communication has been amplified to global intersubjectivity—a remarkable phenomenon. The good aspect of the worldwide web is very good indeed. How remarkable is it that we can chat with someone thousands of miles away, by way of email or a specific communications “app,” like Facebook, as if the chat is face-to-face. We now can have friends, family, and colleagues in any nation in the world—no matter how distant geographically—and be fully connected with them in either a business or intimate way. We should not minimize this excellent phenomenon. Global friendships and global business connections can lead to global citizenship, a global culture, and eventual peaceful interaction through discussions—words—rather than violence and war. The democracies of the world already discuss their differences without war and violence. However, tyrannies—which are based on violence—continue to threaten the world with war. Now, the democracies—Britain, France, the USA—have a miserable record when it comes to the colonial domination of Third World countries, from which they desired natural resources.6 And, the American invasions of Vietnam, and later Iraq, show that democracies are not immune from utilizing direct military force when they want to. Still, the statement that the advanced capitalist democratic nations interact with each other through discussions and negotiations, rather than violence and war, is largely accurate. For, in principle, democracies promulgate rational discussion of all issues, and, the rule of law guiding all political actions. To sum up, the new Communications Systems can, and have, assisted the rational, lawful interactions between the world’s democracies. The new communications technologies, like all technology, is morally neutral. The technology does not make a decision to work for democracy or tyranny. The new technology can be used to enhance democracy, advanced tyranny, or undergird totalitarianism.

6

Emanuel Wallerstein, The World System, NY, Basic Books, 1968.

176

21

Totalitarianism: Tyranny Taken to a Terrifying Level Totalitarianism as a. . .

We have described how totalitarianism emerged with frightening success before the invention of the modern communications devices and systems. Given the Nazi success with totalitarian control, the addition of the new technologies could create a totalitarian control even more successful. The key technological phenomena are the surveillance devices which are now proliferating worldwide. Cell phones already provide the geographical location of every citizen possessing one—linked into the satellites circling the earth, they pinpoint our location on the globe. The cameras on our computers already watch us. Amazon, Apple, Google, Ali Baba, and other companies already have home systems through which we can order their products, and through which they can, not only “see” you, but they can “know” your desires and needs—in a material sense. Governments obviously can use all of these devices to surveille—spy—on its citizens. Along with these systems, the new technology has spread to street cameras and doorbell cameras, equipped with facial recognition technology, such that an individual can be tracked by cell phone, seen by street cameras and living room cameras, and, in general, observed in every aspect of their lives. The possibilities for totalitarian control in these new systems is horrifying.

Xi Jinping and His Totalitarian Program As we write, Xi Jinping has horrified the democratic world, by utilizing the new technology to spy on his entire population. He has been installing surveillance cameras on every street—the democratic nations are doing this also. While in the democratic nations these surveillance cameras are used to solve crimes—theft, murder—in China, the cameras are used to evaluate a citizen’s commitment to the regime and to the maintenance of order. The cameras in China report everything from jaywalking to violent demonstrations. And then, each citizen—and there are a billion!—is given a numerical evaluation. If a citizen gets a high evaluation, they gain privileges—their children can go to a good college, they can buy a fancy condo, they will not be hassled by the police, etc. If a citizen gets a low score, their children will be blocked from upward mobility and forced into low-level factory work, they will be forced into inadequate housing, and they will be interrogated, threatened, and arrested if their low score permits. Taking a page out of the Nazi playbook, Xi has now recruited spies to work in schools, universities, hospitals, corporations—spies who report their information about citizens to their police handlers. These spies don’t necessarily use high-tech surveillance products, they insert themselves into workgroups, and therefore can hear things that might be out of the range of the tech surveillance devices. This system of spies was used in East Germany during the Russian occupation. And celebrities such as Katerina Witt, the Olympic Ice Skating Champion, admitted that the pressure was so great on them, that they did spy for the government. In return

The Roots of Totalitarianism: From Ancient Egypt to Modern China

177

for this spying they gained privileges, such as world travel, luxury housing, and high social status. It is important to note that many Chinese intellectuals, and foreign observers, who knew Xi Jinping when he was Mayor of Shanghai, believed that he was a reformer who would liberalize China. Shanghai’s competition with Hong Kong—economically and socially—led observers to believe that Hong Kong might be the long-term model for China.7 However, Xi Jinping is the son of one of Mao’s fervent supporters. For whatever reason, when Xi became head of the Communist Party Government in Beijing, he reverted back to the totalitarian excesses of Mao. Thus, while encouraging and supporting China’s capitalist development and scientific and technological advancement, he also tightened the noose of Communist Party control. These could be conflicting programs, but Xi has been careful to support business development by using government powers. Xi has expanded world trade, built container ports in Africa, South America, Greece and Italy. He has encouraged the stealing of America and EU technology with government programs of technology espionage. Because of this, big business interests have been supportive of Xi’s actions—he is bringing their raw materials from the Third World, and technology from the First World, while assuring world trade supremacy with the well-engineered new container ports. Finally, rather than reining in the totalitarian regime of Kim Jong-un in North Korea, Xi has helped Kim’s regime survive. These two regimes—Kim’s North Korea and Xi’s China—are showing the world how the new technology can be joined with old-fashioned spying to create a totalitarianism of terrifying proportions.

The Roots of Totalitarianism: From Ancient Egypt to Modern China Totalitarianism goes far beyond tyranny. It implies the total organization of the society and the involvement of all the people in monumental projects. It is not enough not to rebel against the government. One has to give more than obedience to authority, one has to participate in the vast projects the government is undertaking. In the modern world, both Hitler and Stalin demanded enthusiastic participation in colossal industrialization programs, infrastructure programs, and military buildups. And, along with the extra work, beyond every day work, the Nazis and Communists organized mass rallies and demonstrations in which every subject was compelled to participate—and to participate enthusiastically. Kim Jong-un in North Korea demands all of the same.

7 Ronald M. Glassman, China in Transition: Communism, Capitalism, Democracy, NY, Praeger, 1990.

178

21

Totalitarianism: Tyranny Taken to a Terrifying Level Totalitarianism as a. . .

Before the Nazi and Communist eras, was there totalitarianism? The answer is yes, and it began in the earliest of human civilizations. In the era of hunting-gathering tribes, when life was hard and survival difficult, all the people work together in cooperative activities, such as building shelters and making clothing and craft goods. Though survival was difficult, humans actually had leisure time and time for celebrations—singing, dancing, and feasting. Some new books on the first observation of the Native Americans in Virginia by the English,8 describe this very beautifully. The agricultural revolutions brought a more abundant food supply. And, when agricultural production was adapted to river flood conditions, an enormous superabundance of food occurred. Grain production revolutionized agricultural production, because grain could be stored for future use, and, grain could be used for animal husbandry. Wheat, barley, rice, corn, and other storable grains generated a population explosion amongst humans, who now produced an excess of agricultural products, along with meat, milk, cheese, and yogurt, from the domesticated animals. Hanari,9 in his book Sapiens, states that the agricultural revolution turned out to be the worst thing that ever happened to Homo sapiens. Why? Because the superabundance of food was claimed by the two dominant classes that emerged: the warrior-aristocrats and the priests. They took the lion’s share of the produce, lived a luxury lifestyle in palaces and temples, while 90% of the people lived poorly in villages and urban neighborhoods, and were forced to work much harder than the hunters-gatherers ever had. And, not only did they have to work harder, but they lost their dignity, as they were treated as “commoners”—lowly beings—by the warrior and priestly aristocrats—who were treated as Gods.

The Origins of the Divine Kingship How did such a thing happen? Answer: The agriculturalists, out in the fields along the rivers armed with only their agricultural implements, were vulnerable to attack by marauding tribal peoples, who would suddenly descend upon them, stealing the grain and domestic animals, and killing any farmers who resisted. In order to prevent this, a class of warriors was allowed the leisure time to perfect their warrior skills and weaponry, so that they could protect the farmers. The warriors developed armor, swords, better spears, and chariot and cavalry fighting, when horses were domesticated. The warrior aristocrats did protect the farmers—tribesmen were no match for armored aristocrats of the emerging river flood civilizations.

8 9

Helen C. Rountree, The Powhatan Indians of Virginia, Paperback Amazon, 1992. Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, 2011.

The Origins of the Divine Kingship

179

However, once ensconced, not only were marauding tribesmen no match for the warrior aristocrats, but neither were the farmers. Power corrupts: the warrior aristocrats demanded great portions of the produce, established a luxury lifestyle for themselves, and threatened the farmers with violence if they resisted. Over the centuries, the warrior aristocrats—now dressed in magnificent clothing and gold-trimmed armor, with their wives dressed in magnificent, jeweled dresses and cloaks—looked and acted superior to the farmers—dressed in dirty farm clothing and stinking from animal fertilizer. How did the powerful warrior aristocrats become “Godly”? Enter the priests. River flood agriculture would not have been possible without the existence of an organized priesthood. Agriculture had long since been invented in the Middle East and in all of the civilizational regions. Women invented agriculture, since they were the gatherers and the men the hunters. Women noticed that seeds and tubers left in moist soil grow. In all tribal societies, the women did the gardening (horticulture), while the men hunted.10 Men domesticated animals. First dogs, helpful in the hunt, then small animals, like pigs, sheep, and goats. Later cattle, donkeys, horses, camels, and other larger animals were domesticated. It was the priests who oversaw the large-scale river flood agriculture. Why? Because the people had to know when the rivers would flood, when it was good to plant, how to use fertilizer, and when it was good to harvest the crops. Why did they need the priests? Because the priests developed the first calendars—they knew when the rivers would flood and when it was safe to plant. They had knowledge of plant nurturance and fertilization. They had knowledge of irrigation and drainage. How did they get this knowledge, and why were they venerated? All tribal peoples had shaman—male and female priests. These tribal priests were healers—they studied herbs and plant juices and insect juices and snake venom. They could heal wounds, ease stomach ailments and fevers, and, kill through poisoning.11 Tribal priests—male and female—also held “curing ceremonies” for the sick. They danced, they sang, they chanted, they used rattles and masks—they could induce trance, or hypnotic states in the sick to help cure them—they could go into a trance-state themselves, and interpret dreams and explain the world of the “spirits.”12 These tribal priests were both held in high esteem, and, feared. They led the “rite of passage” ceremonies in which boys, and sometimes girls too, were terrorized and tormented before being allowed to become adults. They were sometimes executioners of those who broke the tribal laws. They presided over funerals and shepherded the souls of the dead to the world beyond human conception.

10

The Goddess of Fertility, Mother Nature, Inanna, Ishtar. Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. 12 George Harley, Masks as Agents of Social Control, Poro Cults of West Africa. 11

180

21

Totalitarianism: Tyranny Taken to a Terrifying Level Totalitarianism as a. . .

When the agricultural revolution spread to the great rivers (and in central America and Mexico, underwater sources of irrigation), it was the priests who came to direct and control the agricultural economy. Archaeologists call these economies, “temple economies,” and they are correct. The priesthoods directed the planting, the large-scale irrigation projects, the fertilization of the soil, and the massive harvesting. Then all the excess grain was stored in the temples, guarded by the priests, and doled out when needed. Even the flocks of domesticated animals were counted by the priests, and given out as sacrifices for the gods, and supplements to the luxury lifestyle of the warriors. So, the priests were already directing large-scale projects, and, organizing the farmers—male and female—into work brigades to accomplish these projects. Why are Homo sapiens deeply religious, and how did the aristocrats become godly? Homo sapiens key characteristic as a species—the characteristic that allowed us to go from an insignificant hominid to the dominant species on earth—is human consciousness: heightened awareness of the world, other humans, animals, and the universe above. This conscious awareness allows us the intelligence to cope with the world—and language allows us to inter-subjectively communicate with other humans, by pooling our knowledge and making the group much smarter. Harari calls this, “the cognitive revolution.”13 However, this cognitive revolution brings with it a negative phenomenon. Because we humans are aware of ourselves, and others, we become aware of our own impending death. We know we will die, because we see people die. The future becomes anxiety producing. This “existential anxiety,” as Jean-Paul Sartre14 calls it, engenders, not only fear, but also speculation: why do we die? Does the soul live on beyond the body? Why are we born? What should we do while we are alive? Religion emerges as a universal phenomenon, as Durkheim tells us in his Elementary Forms of Religious Life,15 in order to help answer these existential questions. As described, tribes had priests who helped answer these questions, and who kept the myths and folkloric explanations alive from generation to generation. These priests also led the rituals which bind people together into sacred communities—the rituals reinforce group solidarity, and therefore, the priests are greatly venerated. In the era of the great civilizations, the priesthoods—male and female—not only led the rituals, kept the myths, healed the sick, and communed with the Gods, but they also led the large-scale agricultural projects. It was a logical next step for the priests to ask the farmers and herders to give up some of their time to build giant temples to the gods. And, the people did this willingly. The priests and priestesses, like the warrior

13

Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, 2011. Jean Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, NY, Amazon 2012. 15 Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, NY Free Press, 1952. 14

Totalitarian Projects in Egypt and Mesopotamia

181

aristocrats, began to dress in magnificent clothing, to take the surplus for themselves, and to live in the huge temples. The merger of the warrior aristocratic class with the priestly class produced an upper class of privileged clans that ruled over the commoner farmers, herders, and craftspeople. This merger eventually led to the new political institution of the “Divine Kingship.” The priesthoods created an ideology of legitimations which invested the Kings and the “Royal” clans with godliness. The people had to bow down, crawl, “cowtow,” never make eye contact when approaching the Divine King—to violate this was to die on the spot.

Totalitarian Projects in Egypt and Mesopotamia How did this lead to totalitarianism? The Divine Kings, encouraged by the priesthoods, ordered the people to build monumental tombs, palaces, and temples, along with walled cities and connecting roads. The priests already directed large-scale irrigation projects, so it was an easy leap to direct the building of giant tombs, temples, and palaces. Why did the people comply? Partly out of deep religious belief, partly out of fear of the Divine Kings. Look at Stonehenge: out of religious belief, people dragged huge stones for miles—over water and land—to build the religious structure. So, too, at Easter Island, giant statues were carved and dragged for miles. People’s religious fervor and the grandeur of the end result of the projects motivated people to work in these corvee work teams, that were organized by the priests in military-style regiments. Fear of the Divine King also played a part—if you disobeyed and would not join in these work teams, you and your family would be punished—by the priests and the Kings. These ancient projects—which still amaze us today—represent the first totalitarian political organization in human history. In Egypt, the building of the pyramids and the Sphinx took enormous organizational effort. Hundreds of thousands of farmers and craftsman were temporarily organized into corvee work teams and directed by the priesthood towards building these monumental structures. The reason this did not cause rebellion was because the work teams were temporary—after months of heavy labor, each team was replaced by a new, fresh team. And, the workers were well-fed and many have reveled in the immensity of their undertaking, and were glad to be away from their usual chores. Eventually, there may have been rebellions, because the Old Kingdom did eventually come to an end. However, into the New Kingdom—and lastly 3000 years!—monumental palaces, temples, and statues, requiring totalitarian organization of society, continued—3000 years!

182

21

Totalitarianism: Tyranny Taken to a Terrifying Level Totalitarianism as a. . .

All the Egyptians had a sense of pride in their productions—although only the priesthood—knew how to build them, and only the craftsman have the skills to do so. When the priesthood was abolished in the Roman Era, the knowledge of how to build these projects and organize them disappeared with the priests. Similar totalitarian projects occurred in the Mesopotamian region between the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers. The priesthoods ran the temple economy and gigantic ziggurat temples and palaces were built. In Mesopotamia these projects were built of mud-brick, that is why they are gone. And further, because of the waves of military conquest, the totalitarian organization of society was disrupted. The Assyrians conquered and destroyed, although they later built. The Neo-Babylonians also conquered and destroyed. The Persians conquered, but did not destroy. However, the Persian Kings were interested in continuous, expansionary conquest. They recruited huge armies and expanded outward. The Persians did organize totalitarian work projects for cities, temples, and palaces, but then the loss to the Greeks ended this era.

China: Divine Kings and Confucian Officials16 China is the only great civilization which was not administered by priests. However, the Emperor was “divine”—he ruled with “the mandate from heaven.” In China, there had been a shamanistic priesthood. This tribal priesthood left us with hundreds of “oracle bones”—they predicted events based on “omens.”17 However, Confucius masterminded a system of meritocracy for Chinese government officials. As Max Weber has told us in his Religion of China,18 the brightest young men from each of the villages were invited to take examinations. They studied hard, and those who passed became state officials. They were learned in calligraphy, writing, reading, history, poetry, and more. Weber called them literati officials. Because Confucius said, “Do not ask about me about the afterlife, I hardly know anything about this life.”19 These literati officials did not study theology. Nonetheless, they created calendars, built-up knowledge, and, directed the totalitarian projects of ancient China. They recruited work teams, just like their Egyptian or Mayan counterparts. Roads were built, canals were dug connecting the great rivers, cities were built and fortified with mud-mound walls. And, of course, The Great Wall was built, section by section, century by century to keep the Turks and Mongols out. These horse riding marauders had terrorized the Chinese peasants, but The Great Wall was successful until the days of Genghis Khan.

16

Max Weber, The Religion of China, NY Free Press, 1956. Archeologists have found “Oracle bones”—thousands—in China. 18 Max Weber, The Religion of China, NY Free Press, 1956. 19 Confucius, The Analects, NY, Amazon, 2000. 17

Modern China and Mao’s Totalitarianism

183

The point here is that China, under the Emperor and the Confucian-trained officials, engaged in large-scale mobilizations of the population in corvee work projects on a mammoth scale. The Great Wall still stands, along with the pyramids, as one of the “Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.” The canals still function, the dams still exist, the pagoda-like temples and palaces still exist—though they are made of wood, so many have disappeared. Because Confucianism has no theology of God or the soul, but does have a moral code of “benevolence” and “The Golden Rule,” Buddhism flooded into China to fill the theological gap. So, Chinese morality is basically Confucian, but the Chinese theology is either, Buddhist or Taoist, along with ancestor worship, which Confucius demanded, as part of his ethical code. As with Egypt, China’s totalitarian large-scale mobilizations continued for centuries. Then in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Emperorship declined— overrun by the Manchus, the central government lost its control over the hinterland. Anarchy and conflict—warlords—existed as to the European colonialists took over China.

Modern China and Mao’s Totalitarianism With the takeover by the Communists, Mao Tse-tung ordered the mobilization of the entire country in the effort to build modern industrialization. Once again, as in the days of the Emperorship, organized work teams recruited from every corner of China build roads, electrification, canals, heavy industry, schools, universities, hospitals. They followed the Russian model of rapid industrialization, but utilized a full-scale totalitarian effort that the Russians only used in the first 10 years. Mao went far beyond the Russians when he initiated “The Great Leap Forward.” In this effort to overtake the West, he mobilized the entire nation—men and women—imitating, not Russia, but the Emperors of old. This ancient mode of totalitarian mobilization for industrialization failed. Mao knew it failed, called it off, and as mentioned, tried again with “the cultural revolution.” This too failed. Once Mao died, Deng Xiaoping set China on the “capitalist road,” and, once the capitalist model succeeded dramatically, the world’s observers—and most Chinese intellectuals—believed that the days of totalitarian control were over—this kind of control was unnecessary—capitalism was working. When Xi Jinping came into power, as mentioned, he was thought to be a liberal reformer based on his leadership in Shanghai, wherein the Hong Kong model of capitalist development had been closely followed. Xi, however, discovered, as supreme leader of the Communist Party, that China needed natural resources for its capitalist buildup. These resources exist in China, but in the minority areas, such as the region of the Muslim Uyghurs and Tibet. So Xi clamped down on all the minority regions, instituting a reeducation program to force them into a “Han” Chinese pattern of culture. “Sinification” had been utilized by the

184

21

Totalitarianism: Tyranny Taken to a Terrifying Level Totalitarianism as a. . .

Chinese officials to absorb conquerors, like the Mongols and Manchus, and make them Chinese. This long-held tradition in China is being utilized now as a “thought control” program. The Chinese Communists did this to American prisoners of war during the Korean War. It is insidious and demands totalitarian control. Further, China is expanding geo-politically, to ensure the flow of raw materials from South America, Africa, South East Asia, and the Middle East. The British had done this, and the Americans still do this. In China, however, it has led to Xi Jinping increasing his power and prestige with these world projects.

Xi Jinping and Modern Totalitarianism in China As we have emphasized, China is now utilizing the newest technology to enhance its total control over every individual in the billion strong Chinese population. They are using AI, facial recognition, surveillance cameras in streets and in the phones. They are using a numerical rating system for every individual—good ratings gain one access to good jobs, good housing, good schools for the children, while had ratings brand the individual and inhibit his or her success. Rather than liberalizing, Xi Jinping is creating a technological totalitarianism foreshadowed by George Orwell in 1984—Big Brother—the Chinese government is watching you and rating you, and controlling your thoughts. Will this succeed in China? It did succeed in Nazi Germany—even without high-tech surveillance devices or AI. In Germany, in the 1920s, the country was in a state of collapse. Germany had lost World War I, its military had been disbanded, its pride shattered. The Great Depression hit Germany hard—inflation was astronomical, unemployment was very high. The Democratic government, newly institutionalized with the Kaiser’s withdrawal from power, seemed unable to restart the economy, or reestablish German pride. Enter Hitler. Hitler and his Nazi party blamed the Jews for Germany’s loss in World War I, began a massive military buildup, energized the economy with military and infrastructural projects on a national scale. Hitler and the Nazis mobilized the whole of German society in a totalitarian blitz—organizing mass rallies, unifying the Germans with symbols from their tribal past, and utilizing work teams for large-scale civic and military projects. There was no more inflation, no more unemployment, German pride was rekindled, German military might reasserted. The German people loved it. They enthusiastically participated. They joined joyously in the rebuilding of Germany and reveled in the ideology of German Aryan superiority. They looked the other way, or were in denial about the “disappearance” of the Jews from their neighborhoods. Everything was going well for the Germans, and so the totalitarian efforts and thought control were accepted enthusiastically. Then they went to war. And, the

North and South Korea: Competing Models

185

Germans, not only fought to the death, but carried out the genocidal orders against the Jews, Gypsies, and some Slavs, efficiently and with little resistance. So, totalitarianism in Nazi Germany worked, and was legitimated by the German population. After World War II, of course, with the Nazi loss and the country bombed to a shambles, the totalitarian era was reconsidered. Since Germany was successfully rebuilt, re-industrialized, and reorganized by a democratic government (in Western Germany), and a standard capitalist economy, the new economic and political “miracle” became legitimated in Germany. Germany does not need totalitarianism—it is a democratic-capitalist success. So, what does this tell us about China today? Xi Jinping believes that China, with its billion people and its many minority provinces and its geo-political expansion, needs totalitarianism to keep political order and ensure economic expansion. The Chinese in Hong Kong and the New Territories, Taiwan, and even Singapore, believe that this kind of totalitarian extremism and thought control is unnecessary. These Chinese, and many in Shanghai, believe that the Hong Kong model of democracy and capitalism is sufficient for excellent economic growth and technological creativity, and, that political order can be maintained with a strong but liberal state. Such a state would have an excellent police force and military—as do the Americans, English, Japanese, and South Korean states. In the meantime, Xi’s totalitarian regime is attempting to establish legitimacy by engaging in monumental projects that are dazzling. That is, glittering, beautifully architected glass towers are going up in many new cities and sections of old cities. Cities like Chongqing and Shenzhen are remarkable. And, the massive, modern high-tech container ports that the Chinese built in Greece, Italy, Brazil, Africa, are amazing. Whether these economic monuments, geopolitical achievements, and continuing capitalist and consumerist expansions will lend legitimacy to Xi’s totalitarian regime is not yet known. Totalitarianism is not necessary to keep order amongst the new middle class. It is probably not necessary to keep order amongst China’s rural poor and urban poor. The Hong Kong Chinese have proven that they could absorb millions of poor mainland Chinese—even the “boat people”—into the capitalist factory economy and the educated systems. Let us end with North and South Korea again.

North and South Korea: Competing Models North Korea is the only Communist country left which is still exhibiting the purely Stalinist model of society. Cuba is changing—the Castros are no longer in charge, and Vietnam is attempting to take “the capitalist road.”

186

21

Totalitarianism: Tyranny Taken to a Terrifying Level Totalitarianism as a. . .

North Korea: Stalinism North Korea was never Marxist-Leninist. There was no utopian classless, genderless, peoples democracy ever intended. North Korea was a dynastic dictatorship under the influence of Stalinist Russia and Maoist China from the beginning. Following Stalinist strategy, the Kims have focused all their societies efforts at military strength. Science, technology, and all the mobilized programs are directed toward the military. This military buildup, following Russian advice, was very successful. North Korea, as the world knows and fears, has nuclear bombs and is rapidly developing intercontinental missiles. In terms of military strength, North Korea is a tremendous success. The problem is that the rest of the economy was neglected. Far worse than the Russian neglect, the North Korean economic failure has left that society with an extreme shortage of food and almost no consumer goods. Only the army is well fed—and it is massive. Without food imports from Russia, China, and the USA, starvation would have been even worse than it was. Kim Jong-un knows that he needs food imports and medical imports, and consumer goods. He has attempted to negotiate with President Trump, but Kim is unwilling to give up his nuclear weapons. North Korea stands as a model for developing nations—if they wish to focus on military dominance exclusively. Most developing nations want a more rounded economic development. But North Korea’s military success might attract future developing nations. But, South Korea stands as an alternative model that seems more appealing—at the moment. North Korea, though economically unsuccessful, uses totalitarian rallying techniques, and, terror threats, to keep their population from rebelling. In order to enhance their legitimacy, the Kim dictators have attempted to make themselves into something like Divine Kings. They use the “cult of personality,” as it used to be called, putting their faces on posters all across the country, building statues of themselves, putting themselves on television—and now on podcasts— making themselves larger-than-life. They use every “manufactured charismatic effect”20 they can, in order to enhance their personal charisma—which is lacking in Il and Un completely. Do these manufactured charismatic effects work? They work in the modern world if the society in question is improving. Mussolini and Hitler succeeded with their manufactured charismatic effects because there were spectacular results in Italy and Germany. North Korea, however, can’t feed its people and without consumer goods, life is drab and difficult. The missiles and nuclear bombs and military parades help, but Kim Jong-un is not seen as a godly figure. He has increased the repression and terror because his rule has not been legitimated. The totalitarian mobilizations and rallies 20

Ronald M. Glassman and William Swatos, Jr., Charisma, History and Social Structure, NY Praeger, 1981.

South Korea: Capitalism and Democracy Succeeds

187

have helped, but the cult of personality has not been working for Kim Jong-un. The North Koreans are afraid of him but they do not venerate him. The Kims use mass rallies, impressive military parades, the organization of the people into teams of supporters, practicing displays of “cheerleading” at the rallies. There is mass mobilization, but not for creating massive civic or religious projects, but just for displays of support, in an effort to gin up legitimation. The legitimation of the regime is lacking because of the economic failures—no one cares about nuclear bombs when they are starving. Since the rallying and parades have not produced enough legitimacy, the Kim regimes have resorted to terror and repression. People are rated on a scale: those who have good scores gain privileges, those who have middle scores gain no privileges, those who have bad scores end up in prison camps—and their entire families are imprisoned or threatened with imprisonment. Xi’s China began to copy this rating system. But China’s economy is booming, so the people have not withdrawn their consent at this time, and they go for high ratings. In North Korea, because of the terrible living conditions, there has been a withdrawal of legitimacy, and, many individuals and families have been incarcerated and badly treated in the prison camps. As bad as this situation is, as long as the North Korean Army and police are loyal to Kim, the regime will not be overthrown. Should the USA and South Korea give North Korea aid and help modernize the infrastructure and agricultural economy? South Korea is building a railroad in North Korea. Will the modernization help Kim stay in power, or lead to his eventual demise? Russia and China have continued to shore up Kim in his failing economy, so the Kim regime will not collapse as long as Putin and Xi support it. Again, should the USA and South Korea modernize North Korea even if Kim will not give up his nuclear bombs? We cannot answer this question at the moment.

South Korea: Capitalism and Democracy Succeeds The existence of South Korea, as one of the four Asian Tigers, exhibiting a very successful capitalist economic development and, after years of dictatorship, a stabilizing democratic system of government, has tended to delegitimate North Korea. For, even though North Korea frightens the world with its nuclear bombs and terrorizes its population into submission, the world’s peoples and their leaders know that there is starvation and degradation in North Korea. Seeing South Korea as a glistening world leader in technology products and hightech consumer goods, and seeing that South Korea can feed its large population well, the world’s nations—including the developing nations—view South Korea as a model for success.

188

21

Totalitarianism: Tyranny Taken to a Terrifying Level Totalitarianism as a. . .

The South Korean economic development has been truly spectacular. Following the Japanese model of industrial organization, as mentioned, giant conglomerates produce cars, ships, television sets, computers, smart phones and more. The South Korean middle-class is awash in upscale fashions and high tech consumer goods. The poor are rapidly absorbed into the expanding factory-industrial economy. The agricultural sector is being modernized to produce an abundance of the traditional Korean foods, while upscale restaurants have absorbed the modern “fusion” cuisine started in California and popular across Southeast Asia. It needs to be emphasized that though capitalism took off fast and was culturally well received in South Korea, democracy was slow to develop. As in North Korea, there was a cultural tendency to establish dynastic family rule. The Kims in the North, the Parks in the South. Dynastic rule with leadership in the hands of a man from one of the prestigious clans of old, was the cultural proclivity in Korea. Under American pressure—and the American Army still occupies South Korea because of the threat from North Korea—the South Koreans did establish a national electoral Parliament. But, it took many years before the South Koreans stopped voting for a dynast. With the growth of a modern, college-educated, scientifically-oriented, prosperous new middle class—as a majority class—the South Koreans began electing modernist, college-educated leaders, disconnected from the dynastic clans of the past. This modern democratic trend will continue, because the economic entrepreneurs and scientific innovators are coming from the new middle class. The CEOs and managers of the giant conglomerates—chaebols—are also being drawn from the new middle class. So, South Korean culture is changing. The traditional culture in food and family interaction still exists, but the modernized version of Korean culture is rapidly catching on. This enhances the stability of democracy. The spectacular success of South Korea engenders hope for optimism. The future of the world may indeed be capitalism and democracy. Remember, however, that there is no end to human history, and that human creativity and human complexity (our animal and sapiens DNA) always engender changes that have never been anticipated. At this moment of history, however, in 2020, no one is running away from South Korea to go to the North, while thousands have been attempting to crossover into China in order to get from North Korea to South Korea. “Big Brother” totalitarianism is being attempted in China. Such an extreme system of repression and mass mobilization, however, will not be needed in China, once the new middle class expands to a larger proportion of the population—no numerical formula is possible in terms of this, but the new middle class will act lawfully and moderately in China as it has elsewhere. Further, once China’s economy is at the level of South Korea, in terms of technological innovation and high-tech production, China will not need its staterun industries and infrastructure projects.

South Korea: Capitalism and Democracy Succeeds

189

Perhaps, perhaps, then China will not need totalitarianism. Of course, even though China, as a modernized society, will not need totalitarianism, if its Communist Party leadership still controls the army and police, China will have totalitarianism, needed or not. Tyrants rule by force and terror. As long as the Chinese tyrants control the army and police, they can rule by force and terror. Having described the beginnings of technological totalitarianism as it is emerging in China—and North Korea, which is beginning to utilize some of the new technology as well—we wish to focus now on another new form of tyranny—one that is improbably linked with democracy. The political scientists are calling it “illiberal democracy.” But, before we call it a new form of tyranny, we should be reminded that Mussolini was elected legally, before he suspended Italy’s democracy, and, that Hitler, though not receiving a majority vote, was legally appointed as Chancellor by Von Hindenburg. So, we do have examples of dictators—after being democratically elected—overriding the democracy and establishing a dictatorship based on violence and military power. Both these examples show that democracy can be overridden and repressed, such that tyranny prevails. And, in both these cases, tyranny was enhanced into totalitarianism involving every aspect of social life in these nations. With the specter of 1984 totalitarianism hanging over us and growing in China, the seemingly less frightening “illiberal democracy” dictatorships, become all the more frightening for what they could evolve into.

Chapter 22

Illiberal Democracy: A New Form of Modern Tyranny

All these dictatorships share some common underlying characteristics: a revival of nationalism; and a revival of traditional religion; an appeal to the less well educated working-class and lower middle class and farmers. Let us look at each of these factors.

The New Nationalism Versus Global Culture The new nationalism is occurring in a world where the internet, smart phones, and entertainment industries are creating a global culture. The new middle class, especially, are absorbed into this world culture—they buy the same fashions and cosmetics, they listen to the same music, and dance the same, they watch the same movies and television shows and podcasts—in short, a global culture is emerging in which the middle classes in all modern countries are becoming like each other. From New York to Hong Kong, from LA to Tokyo and from London to Kiev, the new middle-class world culture is emerging. Thus the new nationalism is emerging against this backdrop of global similarity. It is, in part, a reaction to the multicultural, liberal-minded, open and accepting global cultural trend. A kind of “tribal” reaction against this—asserting that our culture, our “race” is special, unique, different, and superior—typifies the new nationalist movements. So globalism and tribal-nationalism now exist side-by-side as competing ideologies in the rapidly technologizing modern world.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_22

191

192

22

Illiberal Democracy: A New Form of Modern Tyranny

The Revival of Traditional Religion The revival of traditional religion is part of the nationalist movement. So that in Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church has seen a surge of new attendance. While in Hungary and Poland, the Catholic Church has seen an upsurge in attendance. In Turkey, of course, it is Islam—not “terrorist” Islam or even radical Islam, just traditional mosque attendance and a strong commitment to Islamic norms and values and lifestyles. In India—still a full-fledged democracy—Hinduism has become joined to nationalism and could generate an “illiberal” dictatorship.

Support from the Less Well-Educated Thirdly, the less well-educated working-class and farming class tend to resent the success of the new middle class, and, reject the P. C. values of the new middle class—that is, the less well-educated working classes do not accept gay liberation, women’s liberation, multiculturalism, or the mass media—computer—smart phone culture which shows sex and violence openly, encourages teens to dance wildly, and encourages “rap” singing and teen rebellion. Having set the causal context for these new tyrannies, let us now look at each case separately. We should start with Putin and Russia.

Putin and Russia With the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia went from the second most powerful nation on earth to a laughingstock. Boris Yeltsin, its first democratically elected prime minister, was an alcoholic—he embarrassed himself and his nation in publicly intoxicated appearances. Most of the former Soviet republics preferred to link themselves to the EU or the USA, shunning Russian influence and, Russian foreign influence and power diminished. Even Ukraine—joined with Russia for centuries— preferred to break away and join the EU and NATO. Enter Vladimir Putin. Putin pledged to restore Russia’s prestige in the world. He promised to recover Russian influence in world affairs. He said that “The worst thing that ever happened, was the breakup of the Soviet Union.” He won a resounding electoral victory, for he pledged to restore Russia’s pride as a great nation. As soon as he took office, he began rebuilding and modernizing Russia’s military power. New nuclear weapons and better intercontinental missiles were developed and unveiled so that the world knew that Russian military might was back in full force. Putin also stepped up the space program. And, with the American Space

Putin and Russia

193

Program in temporary decline—NASA was yielding to private corporate space projects—Russia’s International Space Station (ISS) and rockets became the preferred program for the Europeans, Japanese, and even Americans. This lent Putin great prestige. Once in power, and while ginning up Russian nationalism, Putin funded the Russian Orthodox Church. With the decline of Communism as an ideology, a return to Christian values was occurring in Russia—even the Jews, many of whom fled Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, were returning to Orthodox Judaism. Putin encouraged Orthodox Christian Church attendance, and he used the traditional Christian values to his advantage: he banned homosexuality—forced gays back “into the closet”; he denigrated women’s liberation, encouraging macho masculinity, and sexy femininity. He showed himself without a shirt, flexing his muscles and showing off his virility. It all worked. The working classes and farmers actively support Putin—they love his macho masculinity, and, his re-institutionalization of Orthodox Christian values. The working class and farm women like it too—they like being considered “sexy” and they, too, enjoyed going to church again. With tremendous support from all the classes, Putin was emboldened to expand Russia’s foreign reach. He invaded Chechnya, Georgia, and then, Ukraine. Chechnya was forced back into the “Russian Federation”; Georgia fought back but lost, and Putin annexed a piece of Georgia; Belarus joined voluntarily; and then Putin invaded and annexed Crimea and the Eastern province of Ukraine as well. The Chechens waged a terror campaign against the Russians—committing terrible atrocities—but they eventually lost. And, Ukraine is fighting back hard, with American and EU military assistance, but has lost Crimea and its Eastern province. The Russian people, by and large, back Putin’s nationalistic program. He can still win an election fairly. If the story ended there, Russia would be categorized as an “illiberal democracy.” However, Putin has taken the next step, and turned Russia into a tyranny. Putin is now a dictator, ruling through force and terror. How did this occur, and, why has the Russian economy not taken “the capitalist road,” like China’s economy? Putin had been a KGB officer. As a member of this secret police and spying organizations, he knew how the system operated and how to maintain it. Temporarily dissolved under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, it was revived by Putin, and established as a system loyal to him. He carefully chose individuals close to him and trusted by him to lead the new version of the KGB. Though he was popular enough to be democratically elected, when opposition leaders and opposition parties began to gain strength, and when the Free Press began to criticize him, he cracked down. Tyrants can never accept criticism and they never can allow opposition to gain strength. Using his reformed “KGB,” he began a campaign of terror: journalists were poisoned, opposition leaders jailed and accused of crimes, demonstrations were broken up. A general repression of dissent and opposition is happening. However, Putin is clever enough to use the poisonings and jailings very selectively, and, to

194

22

Illiberal Democracy: A New Form of Modern Tyranny

keep the outward trappings of democracy in place. Elections are held, the Constitution is not completely overridden, the parliament still meets. Putin, like most tyrants, wants adulation, as well as power. And so, he allows elections, but makes sure he will win. He allows newspapers and TV stations a certain amount of freedom, but makes sure—through terror tactics—that they will not be too critical. Further, he funds and encourages the Russian Orthodox Christian Church, in order to enhance his working-class and rural support. What of the middle class—many of whom want real democracy and political freedom. In order to gain middle-class support, Putin has utilized the enormous wealth Russia has garnered from its oil, natural gas, and mineral export economy. We will discuss the economy shortly. First, we wish to establish that Putin and his minions channeled a portion of the raw materials export wealth into “substitution capitalism.” That is, upscale stores were brought into all the big cities: Gucci, Chanel, Versace, Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, upscale restaurants and coffee shops, and more of the typical big-city modern dazzling consumer-capitalist economy. A tourist in Moscow or St. Petersburg will feel as if they are in Paris or Prague or Vienna. The food is great, the fashions are beautiful, the traffic jams are annoying— in short, Russia feels modern in terms of consumer capitalism. The middle class, therefore, has been bought off sufficiently so as not to want to risk their lives in opposition to Putin. Why invoke the terror when your lifestyle is not too bad. To be sure, there are demonstrations against Putin and for real democracy. And, there are brave individuals who have risked their lives opposing Putin’s tyranny. But, so far, Putin has the situation under control, and, he has kept just enough democracy in place, such that he needs less violence and terror to hold onto his support. This brings us to the Russian economy. Here Putin maybe making a major mistake. The Russian economy is a Third World raw materials export economy. Since the Russians have massive amounts of oil, natural gas, and precious minerals, they are rich from the revenue. The control of this economy was always in the hands of the Communist Party officials. Now, Putin put it into the hands of his most trusted “KGB” loyalists. A handful of these men supervise the technocrats, engineers, scientists, and managers who actually operate the system. These loyal “paladins” of Putin have been called “oligarchs.” Since they are incredibly rich, oligarchs they are. However, they do not act like “oligarchs.” They do not act like rich businessmen and financiers. They do not follow capitalist rules of economic interaction. They do not adhere to contract law or banking rules for business transactions or interest-bearing loans. No. This economy is not capitalist. It is run through violence and terror and payoffs. Hence, it has been called a “Mafia” economy—an organized crime economy. It is run by threats, terror tactics, bribery, torture, and murder. It is a gangster economy.

Viktor Orbán and Hungary

195

The only money that is invested in Russia is that which goes towards the development of military weaponry and space projects. These latter are based on scientific and technological advancement, and the Russians are good at these. Since the days of Stalin, the Communist government of Russia invested heavily in science and engineering, expanding universities and teaching a sophisticated curriculum in the high schools. However, Russian science and engineering are not turn towards consumer products and production—these are all imported. So, the Russian economy is non-existent as a consumer capitalist economy. This is a weakness. However, this weakness will not be felt as long as the raw materials hold out—and Russia has huge supplies of these raw materials. And, Russia’s weaponry and space program are so successful, that Russia appears powerful and ultra-scientific. Putin revels in this military power—threatening USA with missiles and nuclear bombs—while cooperating with the USA and EU on space projects. Thus, in the short term, the Russian economy looks strong, while in the long term, it could collapse. Lastly, and importantly, without real capitalism, there is no contract law, no civilized rules for banking and finance, no possibility of a joint ventures with foreign companies, little opportunity for entrepreneurialism. In short, the lawful base for modern society in economic terms, simply does not exist. American, EU, and Japanese companies will not do business in Russia—they will sell their products in return for cash payments, but they will not engage in joint manufacturing ventures. So, Russia’s economy remains a “Third World Economy.” Finally, the unbelievable wealth that the gangster-oligarchs obtain, has been particularly hidden overseas in elaborate “money laundering” schemes that have criminalized foreign banks and real estate businessmen all over the world. The Cyprus banks have been corrupted, the Panama banks corrupted, Florida real estate corrupted, and so much more money-laundering corruption. So, not only is the Russian gangster economy bad for Russia, but it is bad for the world. Putin is young. He will be popular for a long time. So, the possibility for democracy to reemerge is low. However, the Russian middle-class is expanding— though emigration is limiting its expansion—and the scientific education does create a rational-mindedness, and, absorption into the global Internet and entertainment culture does internationalize the Russian middle-class. Therefore, democracy— which is still institutionalized in terms of elections and parliamentary debates— could eventually make a comeback in Russia.

Viktor Orbán and Hungary Viktor Orbán is an admirer of Putin. However, Hungary’s nationalism was generated by the massive Syrian immigration that spread through Turkey and Greece and into Northern Europe—crossing through Hungary—and into Germany. Whereas the

196

22

Illiberal Democracy: A New Form of Modern Tyranny

Germans welcomed the immigrants—needing labor for their industries—the Hungarians wanted no part of them. Lacking an expanding industrial or technocratic economy—though a member of the EU—Hungary did not want any immigrant laborers. Now, the Hungarians have always been nationalistic. But their nationalism was always mixed with a negative self-image. That is, Hungary has a relatively small population. And, the Hungarians were almost wiped out by the Mongols after a terrible defeat. Further, the Hungarians have always been in the shadow of the Germans. Alliance with the Germans was necessary for Hungarian survival. The alliance with Germany—culminating in the Austro-Hungarian Empire— proved successful, but, the Hungarians always had an inferiority complex when comparing themselves to the Germans. Furthermore, when the Hungarian Kings brought in Jewish immigrants, their German education and their own Talmudic tradition of learning allowed them to do better than the average Hungarian in terms of upward mobility in the economic sphere. So, feeling inferior to the Germans and resentful to the Jews, Hungarian nationalism became increasingly Anti-Semitic and bound into German Nazi nationalism. After World War II, the Russians occupied Hungary, and, when Austria was let go by the Russians, Hungary attempted to gain its freedom as well. However, the 1956 Hungarian revolt against Russia failed. Once again, though fighting bravely, the Hungarians had lost a battle. Finally gaining their freedom from Russia with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Hungarians joined Austria and Germany in the EU. The Jews had either been killed in the Holocaust or emigrated to America. Hungary, thus, was then free to pursue its own interests. A democracy was established, similar to that of Germany, and the modernization of Hungary was begun. Schools and universities were expanded, agricultural production more mechanized, buildings and stores were upscaled in Budapest, a tourist industry opened up—Gypsies (Roma) were invited back for their music and their food and for the tourist industry—Hungary was enjoying a renaissance. A Hungarian Jew, named George Soros, whose family had escaped to America, and who had become a Wall Street billionaire and legendary financial genius, decided to help his old country. He sent funds for the creation of a telephone system and then a cell phone system. He funded a new university, and offered scholarships to Hungarian students to study abroad or in Hungary. He pushed for the maintenance of democracy in Hungary—which he worried might go authoritarian. And, he encouraged multicultural acceptance of Jews and Gypsies into full Hungarian citizenship. His university also pushed P.C. values, such as the acceptance of gays and the liberation of women. Soros’ program was resented in Hungary—who was this rich Jew to tell them what to do and what to think? When Soros’s name was mentioned in the Hungarian Parliament in connection with his philanthropy, he was characterized as a Hungarian-Jew. But a parliamentary member jumped up and retorted, “You can’t be a Hungarian-Jew; either you are a Jew or a Hungarian.”

Viktor Orbán and Hungary

197

Hungary’s economy is not going very well—but it is not going very badly either. The Hungarian middle-class is expanding, and, the working class and farmers are moving slowly upward, with help from the EU. It was the Syrian immigration that destabilized Hungary. The anti-Semitism and hatred of George Soros was already happening. The nationalism was already building, but in a positive way, after years of Russian domination. The massive Syrian March through Hungary seemed to frighten the Hungarians into their cultural fears of extermination. The Hungarians became hysterical. They told the EU that they would not accept a single immigrant. And when the EU rebuked them, they built a fence across their southern border, and stopped the Syrian immigrants from passing through to Austria and Germany. The Syrians have gone back to Greece, and are finding alternative routes to Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. Too late. A right-wing nationalist party, headed by a demagogue and potential tyrant, Viktor Orbán won a landslide election. Viktor Orbán ratcheted up the Hungarian nationalist rhetoric. He has encouraged “Magyar” racial identity. He closed down Soros’ university. He discontinued the Soros scholarships—which had allowed him to gain a British university education. He allowed the Gypsies to sing, dance, and entertain at tourist restaurants and clubs, but cracked down on their settlements. At the moment, Viktor Orbán is seeking to censor the newspapers and control the television stations. And like Putin, he has encouraged a Roman catholic revival in Hungary emphasizing traditional Christian values. Gays are denigrated, women are lauded as mothers, while women’s liberation is considered a negative phenomenon, and multiculturalism is considered subversive to Hungarian identity and the survival of the Magyar race. The young Hungarians are not buying into Orbán’s conservative ideology. In the summer of 2019, they held a gigantic rally for gay and lesbian rights in Budapest, and they cheered when a gay couple and then a lesbian couple kissed. This event was broadcast on television all across Europe. Orbán is continuing to step up his anti-Semitic, anti-P.C. rhetoric, and gin up the Hungarian nationalism and racism. He wins elections fairly, but will he become a full-fledged tyrant—like Putin—if his party were to lose support from the workers and farmers (and a portion of the middle class)? Right now, he is enjoying his dictatorial actions against the press and television stations. He has not yet, however, suspended Democratic elections or cracked down on his opposition. He is still popular, so he does not have to engage in terror tactics. Hungary is an “illiberal democracy,” but it is not yet a tyranny. Let us hope that the Germans and Austrians—whom Orbán respects—will be able, through EU economic pressure—to keep Orbán from crossing the line to dictatorship. President Trump, in America, has partially undermined the German attempt to keep Orbán Democratic, by inviting him to Washington, DC and embracing him. The EU, though, still holds the economic reins on Hungary. Let us hope that Angela Merkel prevails in her efforts to keep Hungary a member in good standing in the

198

22

Illiberal Democracy: A New Form of Modern Tyranny

EU. Hungary’s past cultural and military link with Germany gives hope for an optimistic outcome. Finally, the Syrians want to return to Syria now that the Civil War has ended. They hate Bashar al-Assad the violent, murderous, dictator backed by Russia, but they do want to go home. If they go home in sufficient numbers, the hysteria over immigration may subside in all of the EU countries, including Hungary.

Poland: “Justice and Order”—Jaroslaw Kaczynski The situation in Poland has a causally similar backdrop to that of Hungary. A rightwing Nationalist party called “Order and Justice,” was elected with a strong majority. It has a series of leaders—Duda at present (2019)—who have all espoused a nationalist, anti-immigration ideology, and, a growing anti-Semitism. Polish nationalism, like that of Hungary, is a nationalism with an inferiority complex. For centuries, Poland has been attacked on one side by Germany and on the other by Russia. Aside for one moment of glory, when the combined armies of Poland and Lithuania defeated the German Knights, Poland has lost to Germany and Russia, and been invaded and occupied by both. Poland has produced some great men of history, like Copernicus and Chopin and the “Polish Pope.” And Poland began to participate in the Enlightenment. But Poland’s dreams of democracy and industrial development were shattered by continual German and Russian interference, invasion, and repression. So, Polish nationalism has some glories to point to, but like Hungarian nationalism, it is fragile. In fact, the Polish people have had to overcome the negative stereotype that the Polish peasants are stupid and naïve—“Polish jokes” were popular in the USA and Germany where Polish immigrants settled. Because of this negative stereotype, Polish nationalism has had to create a positive image of the modern Polish citizen—the Order and Justice Party is attempting to do just that. What about the anti-Semitism? There are hardly any Jews still living in Poland, so where is the anti-Semitism coming from? Both Israeli and American Jewish organizations sponsor tourist trips to Poland. They focus on two sites to visit: (1) Auschwitz, and (2) the ruins of the Jewish “shtetls” in the village areas of what the Jews called “The Pale of Settlement.” Poland once had more Jews than any other country in Europe. The Jews of Poland were not so prosperous as the Jews of Hungary. Those who lived in Warsaw and Kraków did become prosperous, but those in the rural shtetls were poor. Periodic “pogroms”—violent attacks against the Jews—occurred throughout the Slavic lands—Poland was not the worst in this regard. In fact, the Jews of Poland largely lived unharmed in Poland. But, the poverty, and the pogroms in nearby Slavic lands, engendered a mass immigration to the USA by Jews in all the Slavic nations. Of course, it was the Nazi German invasion of Poland that produced the Holocaust in Poland. The German Nazi SS carried out the arrests, concentration camp

Poland: “Justice and Order”—Jaroslaw Kaczynski

199

detentions, and mass slaughter of the Jews. Auschwitz, the largest and perhaps most infamous, of the concentration camps was built by the Germans in Poland. When the Germans were driven out of Poland, Auschwitz was kept as a museum to show the world how horrifying a genocide could be, and to warn the world’s nations not to ever engage in genocide again. During the Russian occupation of Poland, Auschwitz remained in obscurity. When the Russians finally left in the late 1980s, then the Jewish tourism from Israel and the USA took off. The Polish government, which had become Democratic, and the Polish people in the countryside, were helpful and welcoming to the Jewish tourists. The Jewish tourists and their organizations had nothing but praise for their Polish hosts. What changed? The number of tourists increased. And many of the Jewish tourists seemed to blame Poland, rather than Germany, for the horrors at Auschwitz. In truth, the Jewish tourists did not actually blame the Poles. But, the Polish people became increasingly nervous about their international image: why were all these Jews—and other European visitors—coming to see Auschwitz? There were concentration camps elsewhere—stop focusing on Auschwitz. The Polish people became defensive— we didn’t do it; we could not stop it—blame the Germans. And the rural Polish villagers also became defensive—yes, the Jews of the shtetls are gone, and yes, we could not protect them, but no, we are not to blame for The Holocaust. The Order and Justice Nationalist Party turned to anti-Semitism to rally the Polish people to its banner. They even began to vilify George Soros, though he had nothing to do with Modern Poland. Why did the Syrian immigration cause a nationalist reaction? One, because these immigrants posed a threat as labor competitions against Polish workers in Poland and Germany. And, two, because they are Muslim, and Poland is Roman Catholic, and, the Polish Pope and the Catholic Church had helped Poland break free from the Soviet Union. Polish guest workers cross into Germany to work. They stay, but they usually return to Poland. Some stay permanently in Germany. The Syrian immigrants were willing to work for lower wages, so the Polish workers felt threatened in Germany and the EU in general. Further, there has been a big Catholic revival, and the Muslim influx seemed to threaten that. Since the Catholic Church had helped gain Poland its independence, anything that was seen as a threat to Christian values, was rejected. Thus, the Muslim immigration generated both a nationalist and a Christian movement of great intensity. As in Hungary, the Christian revival comes along with the support for traditional values, and a rabid rejection of the P.C. values of gay liberation, women’s liberation, abortion, promiscuous sexuality, etc. The Right-Wing Nationalist Party has gained majority support in Poland. They are attempting to censor the newspapers, control the television stations, and repress the opposition. They complained that the one television network that was Polish,

200

22

Illiberal Democracy: A New Form of Modern Tyranny

was actually owned and operated by the Disney Corporation—and Disney guided the programming and policies, not the Polish corporations or government. More. The Polish economy is not strong. Polish workers are still emigrating to the EU and the USA. The Right Wing Party is attempting to stimulate the economy by bringing in Scandinavian, German, and American corporations. Therefore, the lifestyle and consumer possibilities are improving in Poland but perhaps not fast enough, and not coming up to the German standard of living right next door. Will the economy developed fast enough? Will the Muslim immigrants dwindle? Will the Jewish tourist organizations work out a new view that exonerates the Polish people and focuses on Nazi atrocities? Poland needs a new sense of its national character and past and potential glories. One hopes that this can be accomplished without destroying democracy in Poland. The Polish people and their leaders hate Russia—Stalin murdered more Poles than the Germans did—and they fear Putin. Given this, Poland may not squander its ties to the EU. Poland needs NATO, and Germany is Poland’s economic role model. So, it is possible that the Right-Wing Nationalist Party will not fully override democracy, in an effort to placate the EU and maintain their NATO membership.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan In Turkey we have a similar set of causal circumstances, except that the religious revival is Islamic, not Christian. Turkey had a functioning democracy, as in its post-World War I history, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk—the national hero in the war against the Greeks and the English which established modern Turkey as a nation-state after the loss of its empire—had helped craft a democratic constitution. Atatürk’s Constitution included the separation of church and state, because he realized that under Islam, religion and politics had been joined in the caliphate. Atatürk did not want that. He had grown up in Thessalonica—a Greek city—in which Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together peacefully for centuries under Turkish rule. The Turks were famous for allowing religious observance to continue uninhabited by the state. The Turks were also famous for their military prowess and organization. Atatürk allowed the military to play a strong role in the political structure of Turkey. This latter proved problematical. Over the years, the Turkish democracy has been overthrown by military coups. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, military takeovers were common. In every case, however, the military eventually back down, and the democracy was restored. Enter Erdoğan. There were two ongoing problems in Turkey: (1) While the Aegean coastal cities and Istanbul were becoming quite modern and engendering a rising middle class of shopkeepers, small business people, white-collar workers and professionals, the

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

201

central and eastern portions of Turkey—in and around the capital, Ankara, was lagging far behind. The people in this region were traditional farmers and low level workers; (2) Southeastern Turkey was inhabited by the Kurds—a Persian people with a different language and culture who wanted their own independent state: Kurdistan. Erdoğan became the leader of a new political party centered around Ankara—it was, and is, an Islamic party. Its very existence violates Atatürk’s Constitution. But, the poor, uneducated workers and farmers of central and Eastern Turkey joined this party enthusiastically. They are Islamic and they are poor and Erdoğan promised to help them. Erdoğan also promised to make some sort of deal with the Kurds—not to give them independence, but to include them more fully in the Democratic government. Once in power, Erdoğan encouraged the promulgation of Islam—not the radical Al Qaeda kind, just traditional Islam. His followers loved it, but the modern sectors of the population in coastal areas and Istanbul did not like it at all. They are dependent on tourism from Europe and the USA, and they did not want to scare the tourists away. This segment of the population was also attempting to become more modern, more European—the women bleach their hair or copied European hairstyles and clothing fashions; the men wore business suits and were cleanshaven—they wanted to join the EU—and the EU was interested. However, Erdoğan’s followers wanted to enhance their Islamic image: the men grew trimmed beards, the women kept traditional clothing and headscarves. So, Turkey was split. Erdoğan was, at first, popular, because he brought in EU industry, stimulated the economy, encouraged tourism, and kept his Muslim followers benign. But, he never was able to deal with the Kurds, and that situation got worse— violence between the Kurds and the Turks escalated. And, his followers became increasingly demanding about Islamicizing the country, and when Erdoğan gave in, and allowed this, strong reaction against him from the modern sector began to peak. One key factor was that his friend and colleague Fethullah Gülen established a counterparty, wherein Islam and state politics were firmly separated—Islam could and should be pursued “spiritually,” but separated—as Atatürk had wanted—from politics. The two men split, and Fethullah Gülen was forced to flee to America. The army officers, however, turned against Erdoğan. They wanted to restore Atatürk’s constitutional separation of church and state, and believed that it was their duty to do so. They attempted a military coup, but it failed. Then, Erdoğan cracked down: the military leaders were arrested, and worse, many many journalists, teachers, professors, and any others whom Erdoğan suspected of opposing him, were arrested as well. Erdoğan blamed Fethullah Gülen for instigating the coup, and he believes the USA CIA was encouraging it. So, he has become somewhat anti-American, and, he has turned away from the EU as well, and towards Russia. This is very problematic,

202

22

Illiberal Democracy: A New Form of Modern Tyranny

because Turkey is a member of NATO, and has the most powerful army in the Middle East. Further, Erdoğan has allowed the Islamization to spread, and tourism has declined sharply. In the face of this, Erdoğan has encouraged Turkish nationalism, independence from Europe and the USA, closer ties with Russia, and, even support for ISIS leaders hiding in Turkey near the Syrian and Iraq borders. Like many of these “illiberal” dictators, he has allowed elections to proceed. And, even though he tried to rig the elections through intimidation of the modern sector of the population, his popularity has declined so much, that he barely won the last election. If he had lost, would he have stepped down? I doubt it! So what will occur in Turkey as the year 2020 approaches? Turkish nationalism is less fragile then that of Poland and Hungary. The Turks ruled over a great empire for centuries, and the Europeans were terrified of Turkish military might. Thus, the coastal and Istanbul Turks do not respond to nationalistic ideology with any great fervor. They want to be part of the EU. They want to be modern. They love Atatürk, not the Turkish sultans of old. Therefore, they do not, and will not, support Erdoğan—they voted against him in the last election. The poorer, less educated Turks still vote for him and support his Islamic politics. They barely outnumber the modern classes. So, all elections will be close. Erdoğan is slowly allowing the teachers, professors, and journalists to return to their work. He still wants Fethullah Gülen extradited from Pennsylvania to Ankara—but the USA government will not allow it. The Turkish military has been purged, but their role is still strong in Turkey, and they are needed to hold the Kurds in check. Recently, in 2019, President Trump—who has real estate holdings in Istanbul and who really likes Erdoğan—has allowed the Turks to invade Syria, push out the Syrian Kurds into Iraq, resettle Syrian Arabs in northern Syria, and, receive military aid from Russia. As a member of NATO, Turkey should have been heavily sanctioned for the arms deal with Russia. However, President Trump likes Vladimir Putin even more than he likes Erdoğan—Trump seems to like all the dictators who have risen up in the twenty-first-century—and so little has been done to stop the Turkish-Russian military alliance. Erdoğan, then, though he has lost close to 50% of his electoral support, and though tourism his way down, has strong military support from the purged army, and from Russia. The Turkish economy, however, is still linked with the EU, and dependent on tourism. And so, with the Kurdish problem still simmering—even though the Kurds have been weakened by the Syrian incursion—Erdoğan’s position is quite tenuous. As long as he has the army behind him, he will stay in power. Yet, though he knows his popularity has declined, he seems committed to holding Democratic elections. And, he does enough for the poorer Turks to hold their support. Turkey is an “illiberal” democracy, but it is still a democracy. Erdoğan is a tyrant, but the educated middle class in Turkey may eventually vote him out. Even if they

A Note on Modi and India

203

do not, they continue to be oriented towards the Europeans in their lifestyle and culture, and, they will continue to militate for democracy and freedom of speech in Turkey. If and when the Ankara region becomes more modern and better educated, democracy will have a stronger base in Turkey. As for the Kurds, their situation continues to be tragic. Having committed one genocide already against the Armenians, will the Turks do it again against the Kurds? The world is watching this time, and Turkey—Erdoğan—wants positive recognition from the EU in the USA. The Russians will push military repression against the Kurds—as they did with the Chechens—but not genocide. Vladimir Putin knows how far he can go with military repression, and he knows genocide is too far. Let us hope for Turkey and for the Kurds.

A Note on Modi and India Having discussed Turkey, we should mention that Narendra Modi’s party in India has used Hinduism to rally support from the uneducated poorer classes in India, similarly as Erdoğan’s Islamic Party in Turkey. And Modi has used this Hindu support to take over Kashmir—the Indian portion of Kashmir—which has a Muslim majority. Modi has overridden the Democratic majority in Indian—Kashmir. Will he use his militant party to tyrannize India? Democracy has a long-standing tradition in India. The British educated the Indians to “the rule of law” and constitutionally guaranteed rights. And, even though the middle-class is not a majority in India, it is huge, growing, well-educated, and employed in the modern high-tech sector of the economy. The poor in India have always been passive—taking their own lives when things go bad economically and socially, rather than striking out externally. Not only have they been passive, but also dispersed in the countryside in isolated villages. Now, however, they are gathering in the big cities as slum dwellers, and, their condition has worsened, compared to their village existence. So here comes Modi and organizes them as a voting bloc in his Hindu Nationalist Party. Will he use the power and numbers of the poor to create an illiberal democracy or, worse a tyranny? Probably not, given India’s cultural commitment to British style parliamentary government. But, this needed mention in this section of this treatise on tyranny. When we discuss “the poor against Democracy,” we shall bring up India again.

204

22

Illiberal Democracy: A New Form of Modern Tyranny

Conclusions on Tyranny: The “Beast” Within Us We cannot discuss every case of tyranny emerging in the modern world. The Philippines, for instance, is another nation bordering on “illiberal democracy” and teetering on the brink of tyranny. And, of course, many Third World nations in Africa, South America, and southeast Asia are exhibiting tyrannical governments of one sort or another. We have discussed some of these in our section on “The Poor Against Democracy.” What should be made central in terms of tyranny in the modern world, is that there are two kinds of tyranny: military dictatorships of various intensity in terms of violence, terror and repression of the population, and totalitarianism. Military dictatorship has been around for a long time, as we have described. But totalitarianism is a modern phenomenon—even the Divine Kingships, which did involve the entire population in mass building projects, did not attempt to exert total control over their people all of the time. Totalitarianism is the most extreme form of the worst form of government. Plato and Aristotle, already warned that tyranny was the worst form of government—even worse than monarchy—are turning over in their graves because of totalitarianism. And, as George Orwell has warned in 1984, the advent of high-technology surveillance devices and artificial intelligence, will only make totalitarian control more pervasive. Hitler and Stalin already raised totalitarianism to unforeseen heights of terror. Humanistic morality and ethics disappeared, and a brutality worse than the beasts emerged. Now, with the newly improved surveillance technology, totalitarianism could get worse. The strange thing about us—human beings—Homo sapiens—is that our conscious awareness, intelligence, and language have made democracy possible. Democracy is a purely human phenomenon, linked with our key species characteristics. Yet, we are also “beasts”: we eat, we drink, we breathe, we sleep, we fornicate, we defecate, and we kill. We engage in domination and submission, we fight for territory, and we believe that our “tribe” is the best tribe and all others are enemies. Thus, when looking to the future—even though there is enormous progress in technology, and even though the civilizing process does improve our humanistic moral and ethical behavior, our dual nature, as both human being and primate animal, makes the future uncertain. At any time, democracy, and humanistic ethics can be obliterated, and ruthless brutality institutionalized. In the twenty-first century, democracy and tyranny flourish side-by-side—which will become the dominant world trend?

Part IV

Ochlocracy: Mob Rule and Crowd Psychology in the Cybersphere

Chapter 23

Ochlocracy as a Critique of Democracy in the Ancient Greek World

Herodotus and the Debate Over the Forms of Government As we have established earlier in this treatise, Herodotus was the first theorist to write about the different forms of government.1 Herodotus grew up in Halicarnassus—a mixed Greek and Carian city-state on the Asia Minor Coast. He knew of the overthrow of the Carian monarchy and the subsequent establishment of democracy. He also knew that the Persians had defeated Halicarnassus and installed the monarchy again—the monarchy being led by a dynamic queen whom Herodotus makes heroic as she led her ships in the Battle of Salamis Bay.2 With the defeat of the Persians, Halicarnassus returned to independence and reestablished democracy. Herodotus and his family actively participated in this process. Writing about the Persian-Greek wars, and becoming a celebrity in Athens by heralding the Athenian victory at Marathon, Herodotus was well aware of the debates about democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. He heard the positives and the negatives about all these differing forms of government. He presents the arguments for and against each form of government clearly and concisely. First, he criticizes monarchy. “I think the time has passed for any one man to have absolute power. Monarchy is neither pleasant nor good. How can one fit monarchy into any sound system of ethics, when it allows a man to do whatever he likes without any responsibility or control. Even the best of men raised to such position would be bound to change for the worse.. . .And the worst is yet to be said. He [the King] breaks up tradition and law, forces women to serve his pleasure, and puts men to death without trial.”3

1

Herodotus, Histories, Dialogue on the Forms of Government, London, Penguin, 1951. Ibid. 3 Ibid. 2

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_23

207

208

23

Ochlocracy as a Critique of Democracy in the Ancient Greek World

Then Herodotus lauds democracy. “Contrast with this the rule of the people. It has the finest of all names to describe it, equality under law and secondly, the people in power do none of the things that monarchs do. Magistrates are responsible for their conduct in office, and all policies are open for debate.” Then Herodotus describes oligarchy, and suggests that a government of “the best men” would be superior to democracy. It is here, wherein he presents his critique of democracy, asserting that the best educated men would do a better job at governing—and, of course, Plato would make this critique central in his Republic4 wherein he, Plato, advocates for a government run by an educational aristocracy—the best men and women—the smartest and best educated world rule. Confucius describes something similar in that his government officials would be a meritocratically chosen intellectual elite who would govern China. However, Confucius allowed for the Chinese Emperor to retain absolute power—this was a terrible flaw in Confucius’s political program, although his welleducated officials did keep China stable and functioning well for millennia. Let us return to Herodotus. For, in his description of oligarchy, he includes the critique of democracy that the Greek intellectuals would espouse for centuries— from Plato to Polybius. And, most importantly for this treatise, this critique resonates again in the twenty-first Century’s cyberworld. Here is the critique of democracy that Herodotus presents to his readers. Remember that Herodotus favored democracy—championed democracy—hated monarchy. Yet, he wanted to present the critique if democracy which was current amongst the educated upper-class of the Greek city-states. The people are a feckless lot, no where can you find more ignorance or irritability or violence. . . The mob does not understand policy, they act like a volatile crowd. . . The masses have not a thought in their heads; all they can do is rush blindly into politics like a river flood. So, let us grant power to the best men in the country.5

This critique of democracy was shared by many of the Greek upper-class intellectuals. And, of course, since the citizens assemblies met in large face-to-face gatherings numbering in the thousands in the larger cities, crowd psychology and mob behavior did occur. Aristotle was so worried about this kind of crowd behavior, that he suggested that the rural farmers, rather than the city craftsman, should be encouraged to attend the assembly meetings, because the city classes were too volatile.6 And Thucydides7 describes the volatile mob behavior of, not only the Athenian Democratic assembly, but also the Democratic assemblies of other cities as well. Thucydides himself was wronged by the Athenian Assembly. They removed him from his generalship—in a moment of mob passion—because Athens had lost a battle. 4

Plato, The Republic, London, Penguin Classes, 1950. Herodotus, Histories, Dialogue on the Forms of Government, London, Penguin, 1951. 6 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. 7 Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, London, Penguin Classics 1951. 5

Polybius

209

This critique of democracy continued from the Golden Age into Hellenistic times.

Polybius Polybius8 is the political theorist who made the term ochlocracy known. He did not invent the term; it was being used by Greek intellectuals who favored oligarchy over democracy. Polybius favored oligarchy over democracy. In fact, he was a member of the wealthy oligarchy which ruled his home city of Megalopolis. During the Roman expansion into Greek territory, after their defeat of Carthage, Polybius was taken as a hostage from Megalopolis (in the Peloponnese) to Rome. In Rome, he was well treated and became enthralled with the Roman political systems. The Senate, made up of wealthy landowning oligarchs, ruled Rome. These senators, like the oligarchs of Megalopolis, had an excellent education. Polybius became friendly with these educated senators, and, when he discovered that the Romans had not written a comprehensive history of their own country, he, Polybius, decided that he would write the history of Rome. The Roman Senators loved the idea, and Polybius became somewhat of a celebrity. The Senators provided Polybius with all the sources they could muster so that he could write a meaningful history of Rome. Polybius divided his work into many “books,” but the main division was between the history of early Rome—for which there were more myths than historical sources—and the wars with Carthage—for which the historical sources were excellent. In Book VI, Polybius goes into the actual structure of Roman government, using the well-developed Greek analytics about the forms of government developed from the works of Herodotus through to Plato and Aristotle and beyond. Polybius’s description of the Senate of Rome was easy, because it functioned similarly to a Greek oligarchy—wealth and land being the prerequisite for office holding, with certain prestigious families dominating the process. However, in the Greek city-states, along with this oligarchic council, there was also a citizens assembly, which had been derived from the warriors assembly9 of the Greek tribes (as described in The Iliad).10 These citizens assemblies eventually became the core of the democracies of the Greek city-states. It was these citizens assemblies that met in face-to-face meetings of a 1000 to 5000 citizens. And, it is these assemblies of huge crowds of citizens that the critics of democracy claimed that they acted like a mob—becoming emotional and angry and allowing crowd psychology to produce irrational decisions based on emotion, rather than cool-headed logic.

8

Polybins, Book VI, The History of Rome, NY, Amazon 2006. Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. 10 Homer, The Iliad, Amazon, 2007. 9

210

23

Ochlocracy as a Critique of Democracy in the Ancient Greek World

From Herodotus to Plato, the volatility of the crowds of citizens at the Democratic assemblies worried these intellectuals. They cherished the free speech and rational debates and the assemblies, but warned that demagogues could, and did, rile up the people, pushing them towards emotional decisions that they later regretted. Thucydides11 describes this crowd psychology in Athens, when Alcibiades—“The most beautiful man in all of Greece, whom all the women and all the men were in love with”12—convinced the Athenians to invade Syracuse—a decision that would lead to the ruin of Athens.13 And, Plato, most famously accused the democratic assembly of Athens of falsely indicting Socrates, Plato’s mentor and the most famous teacher in Athens.14 For Plato, if the democratic assembly could be manipulated by demagogic leaders to paint Socrates as a traitor, then democracy was indeed flawed, and such mob behavior ruined the free speech and equality that also characterized democracy.15 Aristotle also recognized the volatility of the face-to-face democracy in the assemblies. And he too worried about demagogues manipulating the crowd and stirring them up to mob actions. However, Aristotle believed that democracy was the best practical form of government—that oligarchy and tyranny were worse. But, the irrational, emotionality of the democracy had to be tempered by a majority middleclass. This middle class, said Aristotle, tends to be moderate and lawful in its behavior, and, is well-educated enough and prosperous enough not to act through anger and jealousy, and to resist the emotional appeals of demagogues, and, to restrain the crowd psychology that could lead to mob actions. Without this middle-class majority, democracy would become too volatile, too extreme.16 So, Polybius’s ideas are the culmination of a long line of Greek political theorists. There is one further critical factor in Polybius’s work, derived from his description of the Roman political structure. And, this would be unique to Rome, and, it would increase the critique of the mob action and crowd psychology of democracy. That is, Rome, governed for centuries by the oligarchic Senate, actually had no institutionalized citizens assembly. The warrior organization was under the strict control of the Senate. When the monarchy was abolished—very early on in Roman history (after the defeat of the Etruscan cities which had foisted the monarchy on Rome)—in place of the monarchy, the Roman Senate established the consulship. But fearing that the consul would make himself King because he controlled the army, the Senate wisely established two consuls, such that they would balance each other out, and neither one could gain absolute power. This two consul system worked brilliantly for centuries, and was not

11

Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War on Alcibiades, London, Penguin Classics 1951. Ibid. 13 Plato, The Trial and Death of Socrates: Four Dialogues, London, Penguin Classics, 1952. 14 Plato, The Republic, London, Penguin Classes, 1950. 15 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. 16 Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, London, Penguin, 1952. 12

Polybius

211

overridden until Rome conquered the world and the consuls fought each other—with the winner becoming the “Emperor.” Tacitus,17 in the Annals of Imperial Rome, would describe this, as would Plutarch.18 Polybius wrote earlier, when the Senate and two consuls—with limited tenure of office—still were firmly institutionalized in Rome. It is possible that the idea of the two consuls was borrowed from Sparta. In Sparta, unlike anywhere else in Greece, a dual “kingship” existed. And, each “king” acted as general of a segment of the army. Since there were always two generals, neither could claim absolute power as linked to their regiments. This institution succeeded in Sparta at preventing the emergence of a dominant monarchy. When Rome was organizing its army, Greek colonies, some of them Spartan colonies, influence them. The Romans copied the Greek phalanx and heavy armored formations, they copied the Theban cavalry style, and they probably copied the Spartan system of two generals. Hating monarchy, the Roman Senate called these two generals, “consuls,” and made sure that this office with tenure limited. Now, why am I mentioning this? Because Rome shared another peculiarity with Sparta. In Sparta, the warriors assembly was dominated by an oligarchic council of elders.19 In order to increase the power of the Democratic warriors assembly, this assembly elected a group of representatives who would sit on the council of elders to ensure that the opinions and interests of all the warriors would be taken into consideration in the decision-making of the oligarchic council of elders. These elected representatives were called “ephors.”20 These ephors gained great prestige and developed quite a bit of power over the centuries. Max Weber21 saw the parallels with Rome. Lacking an institutionalized warriors assembly, Rome never developed an institutionalized citizens assembly. Instead, the Roman citizens—who did not have the wealth to sit in the oligarchic Senate, gathered willy-nilly in the main squares of Rome, and literally formed a mob, egged on by popular demagogic leaders who would rile them up, such that they would riot and threaten the Senators with violence if their needs were not met. The Roman assembly was literally a mob, and crowd psychology prevailed such that violent riots were commonplace. Both Polybius and Livy22 describe this behavior. Fearing overthrow, the Roman Senate copied Sparta again. They allowed the lesser citizens of Rome to elect a group of representatives who would sit in the

17

Plutarch, Plutarch’s Lives, London, Penguin Classics, 1951. Aristotle, The Constitution of Athens, London, Penguin Classics, 1964. 19 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. 20 Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. 21 Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Books I–V, London, Penguin Classics, 1948. 22 Polybins, Book VI, The History of Rome, NY, Amazon 2006; see also Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Books I–V, London, Penguin Classics, 1948. 18

212

23

Ochlocracy as a Critique of Democracy in the Ancient Greek World

Senate and make the needs of the people known. In Rome, these “ephors” were called, “Tribunes.”23 The Tribunes of the people, like their Spartan counterparts, gained great prestige and influence. However, in Sparta, the people were carefully constrained within the warrior organization. There was no rioting in Sparta. All aspects of life were regimented. There was no economic life for the men of Sparta, rather, the women ran the economy and food and crafts were produced by various degrees of serfs, whom the Spartans had conquered.24 Rome, though it established the Tribunes as representatives of the people, had a thriving economy of small farmers and craftsmen. When these men were in the army under the control of one consul or the other, they obeyed fully, and, were totally disciplined in their military behavior. However, when these same men were outside of military discipline, home in the city of Rome, they tended towards very volatile and violent actions. The Tribunes, instead of stabilizing Rome’s politics and creating a Democratic avenue of action, produced the opposite. Because the Senate oligarchs were greedy, imperious, and selfish, the Tribunes often could not get the programs the people sorely needed in terms of economic support. So the Tribunes, failing in the Senate, would call the citizens out to the main squares of Rome, and rile them up to mob violence directed at the Senators. The Tribunes became demagogues, instead of rational representatives. Fighting between citizens and senators broke out with killings and beatings and retributory killings and beatings. In the era of the Gracchi Brothers25 this reached its violent peak. Polybius did not live to see the worst of this violence. But, enough of it existed in his time that he contrasted the calm, rational, logical debates in the Senate with the wild, emotional, irrational crowd behavior of the Roman people, who regularly rioted in the city. No wonder that Polybius condemned “ochlocracy—mob rule”—in favor of the educated calm of the oligarchic Senate. So ochlocracy—described in Book VI of Polybius’s History of Rome,26 became a term for a form of democracy in which the citizens face-to-face actions tended toward violence, emotionality, and irrationality of mob rule and crowd psychology. During the Enlightenment, in England, France, and the USA—from 1600 to 1800—the fear of ochlocracy emerged again—especially after the violence and volatility of the French mob after the overthrow of the monarchy. Why do we barely recognize the term ochlocracy here in the modern world? Because the establishment of representative democracy in England, France, and the USA, created a situation wherein the face-to-face democracy of the city-states no

23

Aristotle, Politics, (on Sparta), Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. Titus Livius (Livy), The Gracchi Revolt. 25 Polybins, Book VI, The History of Rome, NY, Amazon 2006. 26 Wilbert Van Vree, Meetings, Manners, and Civilization, Amazon, 2012. 24

Polybius

213

longer existed. No crowds of citizens met; no riots were energized by demagogues. Rather, the elected representatives of the people met in carefully institutionalized settings, with rules of order27 and constitutional laws constraining these representatives to deliberate slowly, carefully and rationally. This process of constitutionally constrained, and rules oriented debate did not occur immediately. The early parliaments could be volatile—men challenged each other to duels to the death. Wilbert van Vree28 describes this process of establishing orderly rules in the Netherlands, England, and the USA.

27 28

Ibid. van Vree, Wilbert (1999) Meetings, Manners and Civilization. London: Oxford U Press.

Chapter 24

Ochlocracy Disappears: The Rise of Representative Democracy

The Representative Parliament and Polite Rules of Order In Northern Europe the system of representative democracy emerged first in the Netherlands and Switzerland. In the marshy low lands and the Alpine high lands, the tribal democracy of the Norse tribes survived.1 These tribal democracies exhibited a system of elected representatives from the aristocratic clans. The tribal Council was called “The Thing” and the regional tribal council was called “The Althing”2 Such Representative government also typified the Iroquois League.3 Thus, when trade capitalist city-states emerged along the Atlantic and Baltic coastlines, these city-states joined into leagues—the Hanseatic League being the largest—and elected representatives from each city to attend a centralized body. Representative government, mimicking tribal government, at first even retained the unanimity principle,4 wherein all decisions had to be made by unanimous vote. Only later, in the Netherlands was majority rule eventually adopted. Also reflecting Norse tribal democracy the representatives were prone to drunkenness and brawling during the political debates. Wilbert van Vree5 describes how slowly, over the years, the Dutch representatives were “civilized” into abiding by good manners, such that the Dutch parliaments began to become more orderly places of political discussion. In the early years, as in the Norse tribes, the members sometimes challenged each other to duels to the death. And, it took a long time before the representatives were taught to debate—use words—rather than to fight each other.

1

Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. The Icelandic Sagas, Translated by Snorri Sturluson, NY, Amazon, 2010. 3 Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society, NY. Amazon, 2012 (1877). 4 Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. 5 Wilbert Van Vree, Meetings, Manners, and Civilization, Amazon, 2012. 2

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_24

215

216

24

Ochlocracy Disappears: The Rise of Representative Democracy

Eventually, after a long slow process, the representatives of the Dutch and German coastal cities developed rules of order for the political meetings of the elected representatives. These rules of order—culminating with the American “Roberts Rules of Order”6 centuries later—tamed and civilized the debates in the city-state parliaments and the national parliaments that would emerge in Western Germany, The Netherlands, and Switzerland. Central and eastern Germany, France, and most of Europe evolved towards kingly-bureaucratic centralization, wherein the vestiges of tribal democracy were repressed and eradicated. In the Dutch Republic and Swiss Republic, however, tribal democracy morphed into city-state democracy, which then evolved toward the representative democracy of the leagues of allied city-states and their surrounding countryside. In both The Netherlands and Switzerland, representatives from the farmers of the countryside joined the city-state representatives, and, eventually formed into national parliaments. The key factor for us in this section of this treatise is that once representative government was established, the representatives slowly civilized the meeting procedures.7 As the representatives became better educated, more learned in rational science, and more Christianized (by the Protestant Reformation), better manners, more formal rules of procedure, and more polite rules of debate began to characterize parliamentary government. In the Dutch States General—their National Parliament—debates were heated, and sometimes still led to violence between representatives and rioting in the cities. But, by the end of the sixteenth century and into the seventeenth century, the civilizing process8 began to take effect, and debates and the States General began to become orderly. A similar process occurred in Switzerland, where the population was far more spread out. Ochlocracy, or mob rule and crowd rioting, began to disappear from the Dutch Republic, as representative government developed civilized rules of order and an emphasis on “good manners.”9 It was, however, in England, that orderly parliamentary rules and good manners were perfected. It would be the British Gentry who so heavily emphasized good manners—“good breeding”—that Ochlocracy as a problematic attribute of democracy all but disappeared.

6

Robert’s Rules of Order, Google for Source. Wilbert Van Vree, Meetings, Manners, and Civilization, Amazon, 2012. 8 Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process, Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam Press, 1955. 9 Wilbert Van Vree, Meetings, Manners, and Civilization, Amazon, 2012. 7

The British Gentry Make Good Manners Central to the Social and Political. . .

217

The British Gentry Make Good Manners Central to the Social and Political Process Both the Norse tribes and the Celtic tribes they conquered were rough, barbaric, warlike and prone to violent actions. The British knighthood and its kings were especially boorish, violent, prone to jousting and dueling and war. When England adopted trade-capitalism, its cities developed a merchant and banking class similar to that of the Dutch and Hansa cities. However, Britain’s best trade item was its woolen clothing. Because of this, sheep farming to produce this woolen clothing became a major industry in England. Tawney10 famously describes the “enclosure movement,” whereby city merchants bought up the land from the English knights, who moved to London and the Kingly court area, and expelled the peasants—who became vagabonds and a poverty group in the cities. The merchants who ran the sheep farming industry and produced the woolen clothing for trade-capitalist profit, were not feudal serf-holders, but rather businessmen in the countryside. These businessmen sent their sons to Oxford and Cambridge and eventually developed a cultural style of “the educated gentleman.” Gentle, because they wanted to distinguish themselves from the violent, boorish feudal aristocracy. These country gentlemen had good manners: They were polite and lawful. They honored contracts and followed the rules of business etiquette, which included negotiation and give-and-take in business transactions. They were cruel and Darwinian (Darwin had not yet written) to the evicted peasants, but fair-minded and polite to all businessmen—even the small “Yeoman” farmers nearby. These British Gentry forged a new cultural pattern for Great Britain—in opposition to both the arrogant, violent, feudal aristocracy, and the wretched violent expelled peasantry. What was this new cultural pattern, and how did it effect parliamentary democracy in Britain and the USA? The cultural pattern of the British Gentry, emphasized, above all else, restraint of the “passions,” polite interaction, and educated debate utilizing logic, not emotion, to win the argument. The restraint of the passions was undoubtedly reinforced by the Calvinist “puritanical” morality deeply ingrained in the British Gentry class. This Puritanism powerfully enhanced the polite, dispassionate demeanor of the British Gentry. Therefore, when the British Parliament began to replace the monarchy as the main organ of government in Great Britain, the good manners of the Gentry class spilled over into the parliamentary procedure of England. This engendered a system of orderly debate and reasoned decision-making. This set a standard for the world

10

R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, London, Penguin Classics, 1955.

218

24

Ochlocracy Disappears: The Rise of Representative Democracy

that stood until modern times. So impressive was the British Gentry in its manners and dispassionate debating style, that even in colonies, like India and Hong Kong, and, of course, the USA, this Gentry civilized style helped establish orderly representative democracy there. Now, it must be highlighted that when Oliver Cromwell and his New Model Army, made up of craftsmen, shopkeepers, and Yeoman farmers overthrew the monarchy, beheaded King Charles, and established a truly democratic Parliament, the Gentry could not abide the passionate and angry conduct of these working class, uneducated “rabble.” The Gentry, who had sat in the representative parliament during the era of the monarchy, wished to retain their status as the sole representatives of the people. They therefore attempted to establish a legal oligarchy. While Cromwell was alive—and he was a member of the Gentry class, and, a devout Puritan11—he prevented the Gentry from excluding the craftsman and Yeoman. With Cromwell’s death, however, the oligarchy of the Gentry was eventually established (some years later, in 1688). Combined with a limited monarchy (borrowed from the Dutch),12 the Gentry established a highly stylized, extremely well-mannered, exceptionally well-educated representative government—an oligarchy of the rich and well-educated—not a democracy. Oligarchy or not, the British Parliament set the standard for orderly and erudite debate that the world’s democratic parliaments still aspire to. The British political theorists, such as Hobbes,13 Locke,14 and J.S. Mill,15, emphasized the control of the passions and the limitation of power in the state. Fearing the absolute power of the monarchies, such power was to be constitutionally limited. And fearing ochlocracy in democracy, mob rule and crowd behavior were eliminated by the establishment of carefully spelled-out rules of order and logical styles of debate. With this British Gentry style of parliamentary government eventually being established worldwide, ochlocracy disappeared as a political category. Remember that in the early years of the Spanish Republic and the German Republic, fighting and dueling continued to occur—so too in South Korea and Taiwan. But eventually civilized manners and logical rules of order prevailed. And, ochlocracy—mob behavior—both inside the parliaments and on the streets of the cities, disappeared. Yet, here, in the twenty-first Century, enhanced by the extremist blogs of the cyber world, ochlocracy has emerged once again. From the USA to Hong Kong, mob violence as appeared again. Let us look at this new phenomenon.

11

Christopher Hill, God’s Englishman: Oliver Cromwell, Google Books, 2001. Joop Boudsblom, The Dutch Republic, Oxford History of Early Europe. 13 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, London, Penguin Classics, 1946. 14 John Locke, On Civil Government, London, Penguin Classics, 1951. 15 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, London, Penguin Classics, 1950. 12

Chapter 25

Ochlocracy in the Cybersphere

The Worldwide Web: The Internet The new—very new—technological explosion that created the computer, the smart phone, and the internet is barely understood. We are just beginning to understand what this global interconnectedness will mean for modern society. And, we are only in the beginning of this technological revolution. New, remarkable inventions and innovations keep occurring, and, every new technological innovation has a powerful impact on our daily lives in general, and how humans interact in particular. I am currently teaching two of my University courses on Zoom. My students and myself are connected by computer, camera, microphone, and software. We interact indirectly, yet, we do interact. Five years ago, this technology was unavailable. Now, it is available, but what is its impact? Is the experience the same as a live, face-to-face classroom? No. However, we are face to face in real time. Like these university classes, so much of our modern interactions take place on the internet with computers and smart phones. My friends and family email me, Facebook me, Instagram me, and more. My bills are paid by computer, my books are published by computer—so much of modern life is mediated by computer technology. So, too, has politics—democratic and dictatorial—become mediated; mediated by television, radio, and computer websites. Television channels present “the news” with their own slant, some conservative, some radical, most moderate. Radio tends to be more extreme—the right and the left extremists having their points of view presented by commentators with extreme views and a lively style of presentation. And, of course, in dictatorships, both television and radio are controlled by the state and tend towards heavily slanted propaganda. Whereas, in democracies there is usually a broad spectrum of opinions, and at least some modicum of fact-finding, fact-based reporting and enough attempts at “getting at the truth” to present a non-propagandist version of contemporary reality. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_25

219

220

25

Ochlocracy in the Cybersphere

Even in democracies, the television networks and radio stations tend to put a “spin” on events leaning towards one point of view about the events or another. However, the events themselves are presented in graphic detail and are usually verifiable. Once the events are presented, then interpretive spins are woven around them. So, explosions, auto accidents, fires, murders, battles, riots, and other disturbing events are all considered newsworthy. Then, once in a while, the television and radio media will present some acts of kindness, like a man pulling someone out of a burning car or a frozen lake, or acts of charitable kindness and humanistic caring—a birth, rather than a death. Marshall McLuhan1 wrote that “The media is the message,” because so much that we know about the world comes to us by way of the mass media. If Marshall McLuhan were alive today, what would he be saying about the newest mass media—the cyberworld of internet communications? The internet consists of many platforms of communication, all of which are so new that we can barely understand their impact on social and political life. The cyberworld, or cybersphere has had a positive impact, on social life in many ways. One critical—and wonderful—impact is the interconnection between friends and family by way of the social platforms, such as email, Facebook, Instagram, and the other social networking sites. So many of our friends and family no longer live nearby—they often live hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Therefore, being able to stay in touch via the internet is amazing. We write to each other, post our feelings and our exploits, see each other on Skype or Zoom or another computer camera microphone system. We have close friends in different countries all over the world, and friends a coast away in large nations like the USA. This is all good, and it must be accepted as such in a positive assessment of the impact of the cyberworld on our lives. But, what about politics? Has the cyberworld created a condition of extremism and political danger? There are extremist “blogs.” Has the cyberworld created a condition where misinformation is rampant? There are YouTube videos, podcasts, and blogs which create and push misinformation giving it a sense of reality that prevents the search for “the facts” and “the truth.” Let us look at this frightening, yet wonderful, cyberworld and its political impact on modern society.

Extremist Blogs I get my “news” from television—I choose the channels that best reflect my views— radio, again I choose those I agree with in terms of their “slant” on the news—and the internet. On the internet, I get my news from the extremist blogs that most closely

1

Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message, NY, Random House, 1963.

Newspapers

221

reflect my views—I also get my information from YouTube videos and from audio and video podcasts. All of my information—or misinformation—comes to me by way of the mass media, which is now weighted heavily toward the internet and its cybersphere. Before I attempt to realize the effect of the extremist blogs, videos, and podcasts, as always, I must add the historical background to these modern phenomena.

The Printing Press and Extremist Pamphlets The invention of the printing press set off the same kind of explosion of intercommunicational knowledge that the internet has generated today. The “Gutenberg Galaxy” extended knowledge of the Bible to the common people, after Luther translated it into vernacular language. Since inexpensive, easy to read Bibles became available in all the European countries, many different interpretations emerged. Books and pamphlets defending one or another biblical interpretation flooded the emerging market. And, these books and pamphlets included extremist views. These extremist views—circulated in easy to read pamphlets (and difficult to read books)— generated extremist, sectarian movements that engendered violence and destructive mob behavior. The theological extremism continued, as the democratic movement began to sweep monarchial Europe. Since the printing presses were turning out extremist theological pamphlets, the leaders of the democratic movement began to print out their own pamphlets, extorting the people to revolt against the kings and feudal lords and to establish democracy and constitutionally guaranteed rights. Extremist pamphlets against democracy were also turned out by the monarchists. So, extremist pamphlets preceded extremist blogs by centuries—and they circulated quite widely.

Newspapers The printing press also generated a more regular presentation of “the news.” Newspapers, unlike pamphlets, were printed regularly—at first weekly or monthly, but eventually daily. The daily newspapers had a profound impact on their readers, just as the blogs do today. And, these newspapers tended to have a political bias. There were left-wing socialist and communist newspapers; there were right-wing nationalists and fascist newspapers; there were pro-capitalist newspapers, and more. There were also moderate centrist newspapers that attempted to avoid extremism— like the American television networks—but points of view were usually inherent in the presentation of “the news” by any newspaper. Then there were, and are, the “Tabloids”—scandal sheets, focused on the sex life or luxury life of celebrities and political figures.

222

25

Ochlocracy in the Cybersphere

These tabloids did not try to present “the truth,” they just revved up scandalous information about well-known individuals. Sometimes this scandalous information is true, sometimes it is completely fabricated. These “scandal sheets” sell well, as do the ordinary newspapers. Now, however, the era of the newspapers have yielded to the era of the internet blogs. Many of the great newspapers—and some of the tabloids—have gone online, espousing the same views, or scandals, that they had in their print versions. The newspapers of the world that survive this transition will become part of the blogosphere—they are already part of the internet communication system, and, they are adopted by a readership that shares the views of that particular newspaper. So, for instance, The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal or The London Times are all circulated now on the internet, and they are part of the cyberworld’s new network of political and social communication. Thus, as the newspapers are morphing into the blogosphere, their impact is similar to any other blog—although, for the time being, they may have more prestige than other blogs. Now let us discuss the extremist blogs that have emerged all over the world.

Extremist Blogs and Their Political Effects The extremist blogs create communities of like-minded individuals all across the globe. These cyber communities can be extremist terrorist organizations, like ISIS, or moderate democratic communities, such as Americans who support one of the moderate candidates for president in the 2020 election year. The problem is, that like the pamphlets of the Reformation Era, the blogs of this present era, tend towards radical views and extremist interpretations of “the news.” In the United States, fundamentalist Protestants, Tea Party Republicans, and Neo-Nazi groups have created right-wing blogs espousing extremist views and demonizing the opposition. On the other extreme, PC—Politically Correct—groups, New Deal Democrats, new left groups, women’s liberation groups, gay liberation groups, Black Lives Matter groups, “Me Too” feminist groups, and others found and support left wing blogs that also tend toward extremism and also demonize the opposition. This polarization in the blogosphere is a worldwide phenomenon carried by the internet, wherever the internet is available. And, it is becoming available in more and more nations. I will discuss “hacking,” and the purveying of misinformation by dictatorial nations, such as Russia and North Korea. Here, I wish to focus on the extremist blogs and their impact. Let us look at the negative impact first.

Ochlocracy in the Cyberworld

223

Terrorism and the Extremist Blogs First, Al Qaeda, then ISIS—extremist Islamic terror organizations—used the internet to recruit and organize a worldwide terror campaign against American, Western, a Christian culture. These radical terrorist groups successfully recruited individuals and trained them to commit terrorist acts. The idea was to disrupt the Western Democracies with terrorist acts committed by individuals and groups. This process of organizing and inciting terrorist groups and terrorist acts has been successful. This threat of terrorism has forced the Western democracies to increase their surveillance of potential terrorist groups, and, to infiltrate these groups with FBI or CIA (or their European counterparts) spies. These infiltration actions have been successful in limiting the number of terrorist acts and in limiting the disruption from these acts. However, this kind of stepped up surveillance and infiltration sets a dangerous precedent in any democracy. For, civil liberties are in jeopardy where such state surveillance operations become too extensive. And, worse, in the dictatorial countries, such as China, such surveillance has led to an expanding totalitarianism (as we have described). So, the use of the internet to form extremist groups and to incite terrorist attacks both threatens democracies and worsens tyrannies.

Ochlocracy in the Cyberworld The expansion of extremist blogs, podcasts, and YouTube videos has created a situation within the modern democracies in which extremist groups—utilizing the free speech of the internet—have been forming virtually, and then actually being encouraged to meet in actual space—usually the main squares of a major city or capital city. Once in actual space and in the main squares, the group is revved up by demagogic leaders to protest loudly. These loud protests, then, can easily turn from speech to violence. Mob action towards violent acts emerges from the emotional crowd behavior inherent in street demonstrations. What begins as rational, but passionate, free speech and free assembly, can become an irrational, angry, violent activity. Anybody who has been at a large scale demonstration knows that, though most of the demonstrators remain focused on free speech, there are always some who break the rules and lose control and begin to smash cars, set buildings on fire, break store windows, and, attacked the police who are monitoring the demonstrations. And, the police, too, sometimes lose their cool and attack demonstrators whose views they disagree with. Given this tendency of peaceful demonstrations to spawn violence, it is even more certain that street demonstrations organized by extremist groups using

224

25

Ochlocracy in the Cybersphere

extremist blogs or other extremist internet platforms, will even more likely end up in violence. Let me give some examples here. First, in the USA during the first 2 years of the Trump administration, right wing neo-Nazi and KKK racist groups began organizing and expanding their support on the internet. They arranged a rally in Charlotte, South Carolina, and hundreds of neo-Nazis and KKK members came to Charlotte live. Hearing about this on the internet, left wing, radical extremist groups, such as “Antifa”—anti-fascists—organized and also came live to Charlotte. Between the two extremist groups were a large majority of moderates, who wanted to stop the neo-Nazis and KKK from disrupting their city. The moderates stayed calm and held onto free speech and orderly demonstration tactics. However, the neo-Nazis and KKK turned violent, attacking the moderate crowd. In the tumult and confusion, one of the neo-Nazis drove his car into the crowd killing a moderate woman. The anti-fascist left wing group tried to attack the right wingers, but the police blocked them off. Too late anyway, a woman had been killed and others hurt. Similar extremist right wing and left wing demonstrations have occurred in Germany and France. The extremist blogs of the internet were used to organize and expand the groups virtually, and then they were encouraged to meet in street demonstrations, where angry rhetoric can easily escalate into violence and vandalism. In Berlin, the windows of both Jewish and Muslim stores were smashed and people were beaten up by the right wing extremists. These neo-Nazi groups in Germany are now donning Trump-like baseball caps which say, “Make Germany Hate Again”—parodying the Trump slogan, “Make America Great Again.” In France, left wing extremists—the yellow vests—have been organized on the internet, and then brought out into the streets to demonstrate. The cause of the “yellow vests” is just—better wages for the working class—but the demonstrations got out of control—cars burned, windows smashed, police attacked. Words turned to violence, free speech ending in mob violence. The situation in Hong Kong shows the problem in the process of internet organization which ends up in street demonstrations. China has been relentlessly attempting to repress the democracy in Hong Kong. When China received Hong Kong back from Great Britain, the Chinese government signed a treaty in which they promised to honor Hong Kong’s independent democratic government. Dictatorships, however, never can abide free speech in their midst. And the Chinese totalitarian government has been attempting to smother the Hong Kong democracy. In response to the repression, the Hong Kong Chinese, led by the younger generation, organized pro-democracy groups on the internet. When the Chinese government continued its attempted stifling of the Hong Kong democracy, the young people organized street demonstrations—in Hong Kong, Kowloon, and, at the huge new airport in Lantau. In the beginning, free speech and peaceful demonstrations prevailed. But when their demands were not met, the demonstrators began to become violent.

Hacking and Misinformation Encourage Ochlocracy

225

Here is the critical fact for us in this discussion of ochlocracy. When the demonstrations finally did work; when the Chinese government did back off; the demonstrators did not stop demonstrating, and, the demonstrations became increasingly violent. Demagogic leaders emerged in Hong Kong—young, volatile, inexperienced leaders. They encouraged the young demonstrators not to go home, not to stop demonstrating, and, to become violent. Yes, these demagogic leaders encouraged violent acts against property, and against the police. Now, the police in Hong Kong—connected to the democratic government—were very mild in their attempts to restrain the mobs of demonstrators. However, once the demonstrators were encouraged to become violent—and they began destroying property—the police were forced to act. Once they acted, the mob reacted and attacked them. So, the free speech demonstrators organized on the internet engendered extremist blogs and their violent actions. The democratic demonstrations became mob rule with crowd psychology—rational free speech became irrational, emotional, angry crowd violence. Ochlocracy replaced democracy. The older generation in Hong Kong are more cautious, and eventually—after months of violence—the demonstrations died down. This situation in Hong Kong shows that even where the groups involved begin as moderates—pro-democracy moderates—if the situation continues, the blogs become more extremist and the street demonstrations will become violent. Violent street demonstrations can undermine democracy. “Mob rule” is the oldest critique of democracy, presented to us by Herodotus. Mob rule, with its emotional crowd psychology, is dangerous for democracy. And this kind of political action is now endemic on the internet. Google, Facebook, and all the other platforms have attempted to monitor this kind of extremist activity. However, they have not really succeeded. Ochlocracy Definitely is threatening democracy, and it is doing so through this new medium of human communication—the internet of the cyberworld.

Hacking and Misinformation Encourage Ochlocracy To make things worse, Russia, North Korea, Iran and other, enemies of democracy, have secretly gone on to the internet, join the extremist blogs—even established some extremist blogs,—and using these internet podiums, they have sought to rile up the extremist right wing and left-wing groups in the USA, UK, and EU, in order to encourage mob action and violent street behavior. The Russians, especially, are really good at analyzing and enhancing extremist ideas and behavior. They encourage extremist groups to go into the streets, hold rallies, an act out violent behavior. The disruption of orderly, lawful, free-speech behavior is their goal. And, they have succeeded to some extent. Even though the democratic governments know the Russians are intervening in their elections, the people in the democratic nations—at least some of them—have

226

25

Ochlocracy in the Cybersphere

been fooled by these very sophisticated Russian interventions. France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA have all experienced Russian interference in the electoral process—and it is ongoing. In all these cases, extremist candidates and parties have been encouraged—even funded. (Marine Le Pen in France admitted she took funds from the Russians). In all these cases, ochlocracy—mob violence—escalated because of Russian encouragement in the extremist blogosphere.

Conclusions on Ochlocracy Whereas large groups of angry people assemble, free speech and rational debate can become overridden by emotional appeals and irrational actions. Humans in a crowd can easily be riled up and agitated. Most people will not become violent. But a certain percentage of people will turn to violence. And some leaders will become demagogues, encouraging violence and leading the emotional charge from democratic protest to mob rage. The problem of ochlocracy disappeared once representative government replaced the face-to-face democratic assembly. These representative governments, as we have shown, developed lawful rules of order. Debates became civilized, democracy stable. Now, however, this new cyberworld has generated a new kind of face-to-face politics. It is a virtual face-to-face politics. It does encourage participation, it does increase citizens involvement, it does enhance democratic participation and alleviate the alienation from the distant parliaments. However, it also encourages extremism. The citizens only read the blogs that have their point of view. Because these blogs are one-sided, they tend to become more extremist. And, if the political situation in a nation is jolted by some major problem—such as immigration, war, or dramatic social changes—the blogs become more extremist. Once the blogs become extremist, mob action is encouraged. And, mob action is not lawful action. Law and democracy are threatened by a return to ochlocracy. Not since the world of the ancient Greek assemblies has ochlocracy been a problem. Yet, today, in the twenty-first Century, ochlocracy once again has become a threat to democracy. So far in 2020, all the attempts to monitor the internet blogs and reduce the hacking and misinformation have been less than impressive.

President Donald J. Trump and Mob Rule President Trump summoned his supporters to a rally on January 6, 2021, to protest the results of the election that he lost. A large crowd of Trump supporters—including neo-Nazi militias—gathered outside the United States Capitol building.

Conclusions on Ochlocracy

227

Trump spoke, rousing the crowd into a frenzy, telling them that the election had been stolen and they should “take the country back.” With Trump’s words ringing in their ears, the demonstrators, armed with wooden clubs and heavy metal baseball bats became a wild mob. Crowd psychology spread through Trump’s supporters and they were whipped into a frenzy of violence. They attacked the police, smashed the windows, broke through the doors and desecrated the Capitol building. They should “hang Mike Pence” (the vice president), and “Kill Nancy” (Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives). Policemen died and others beaten badly, while the Senators and Congresspeople barely escaped—hiding in barricaded rooms for hours. Nothing like this had ever happened before—not even during the Civil War. The American Constitution enshrines government by law, but the modern internet has been used to generate extremist blogs, podcasts, and twitter posts. When the extremist groups communicating virtually on the computer become actual groups meeting in person, their demonstrations can easily degenerate into mob-rule— ochlocracy—destabilizing democracy. Mob rule had been a threat to ancient Greek democracy, and now, given that internet technology more easily allows the spread of lies and rumors, it poses a threat to modern democracy. The American founding fathers, knowing of the warnings of Herodotus, Plato, and Polybius, had tried to constrain mob rule in a carefully crafted set of constitutional safeguards. However, these safeguards have been overridden by the “wild, wild west” of extremist blogs on the global internet. Trump tried to use the mob to overturn the results of a lawful election. He failed, but his followers are still fomenting violence nation wide. President Trump—like other “Illiberal democrats” whom he admires so much— was attempting to stay in power beyond his elected term of office. We call “illiberal democracy” tyranny.

Part V

The Modern Transition: A Fourfold Process—Economic, Cultural, Worldview, and Political

Chapter 26

The Economic Transition to High Technology Industrial Capitalism

Developed, Developing, and Underdeveloped Nations The economic transition involves establishing a high technology industrial capitalist economy. The United States, the EU, and Japan have such an economy. Nations such as South Korea and China are close to having such an economy. Other nations are aspiring to create high technology industrial capitalism—the Eastern European nations, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, and the Southeast Asian nations are making this transition. Many other nations, such as Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Venezuela, and a host of others are still raw material suppliers, and have not quite begun to establish high tech industrial capitalism. Whether raw materials supplier, developing, or fully developed, the whole world is caught up in the transition to, or maintenance of, high technology, industrial capitalism—hence it is a global capitalist system. We have emphasized that this global capitalist system, though it interlocks all the world’s nations, does not override geopolitical nationalist goals. National political ambitions still come first. Remember that world capitalism did not prevent World War II, and, it might not prevent World War III. However, nationalism aside, the world’s high tech industrial capitalist corporations are interlocked by contract law to honor their economic commitments. This is a positive factor militating toward peaceful rational interactions between nations, and, towards lawful political actions as well. But, nationalist ambitions can override these positive, rational, economic interests at any moment. For, nationalism is not rational, it is based on our animal instincts for “territoriality,”1 and “tribal” identity.2

1

Conrad Lorenze, On Aggression, NY, Amazon, 2012. Francis Fukuyama, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, NY, Amazon, 2019. 2

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_26

231

232

26

The Economic Transition to High Technology Industrial Capitalism

The Transition to Advanced Capitalism Fukuyama wrote hopefully of the “end of history” in which all the nations of the world became capitalist and democratic. However, not only is the transition to democracy difficult, but so too is the transition to high tech industrial capitalism. In the United States and the EU, the transition occurred from the internal dynamics of industrial-capitalism itself. That is, the business entrepreneurs adopted the newest technological achievements in their production processes, and, adapted the technology to newly developed products that thrilled the consumers. Thus, the transition from industrial capitalism to “advanced,” or high tech capitalism occurred through scientific and entrepreneurial breakthroughs. Once the technology is invented and applied to consumer products, any nation with the industrial-capitalist system could copy it, advance it, and succeed with it. However, the nations that did not have such an industrial-capitalist system have had a far more difficult time in establishing advanced capitalism. Nonetheless, there have been some spectacular successes in establishing the new kind of capitalist-industrial economy. The “Four Tigers” of Asia have been successful in this endeavor. We are talking about Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea. And, most spectacularly, China has joined the Asian “Tigers” in successfully establishing an advanced capitalist-industrial economy.3 Hong Kong with a democratic government and legal authority left to them by the British, joined with China—with its authoritarian government—to create factories in the “New Territories” between Hong Kong and Guangzhou (Canton). The idea was to utilize the cheap labor of the billion plus Chinese population, coupled with the latest technology. The technology applied both to the productive process in the products themselves. And, the production line itself began as low-tech, cheap labor assembly lines, but, evolved towards increased high tech assembly where this was feasible. The cheap labor was combined with the assembly of high tech products. The Chinese have a strong work ethic, and millions of poor people willing to work. But, where did the high technology come from? The answer is joint ventures with American, European, and Japanese companies. The Hong Kong businessmen acted as mediators between the American, European and Japanese companies and the Chinese government. These joint ventures, with Hong Kong’s help, became tremendously successful. The technology was provided by the advanced nations, and the cheap labor by China. Hong Kong’s banks facilitated this partnership. So, American, European, and Japanese products were made in China and sold more cheaply then if they had been manufactured in their home country (where labor costs were high and the labor force unionized).

Max Weber, Economy and Society “Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich”, New York, Academic Press, 1961.

3

The Transition to Advanced Capitalism

233

The success of the factories in the “New Territories” between Hong Kong and China was so amazing that American and European companies began “outsourcing” as much as they could to China in order to gain the cheap labor. Strangely, high tech production was abandoned in favor of low-tech cheap labor. Automation was scaled back and older labor intensive assembly lines were utilized. This trend did not continue though, because once products like cars and computers were introduced, automation became more efficient—and, the robots could still be tended by cheaper labor. So, outsourcing to China continued and expanded from simple to complex products. The joint ventures gave China and Hong Kong Access to the latest technology of the advanced capitalist nations. And, given the contract laws and the patent laws, the Chinese were not supposed to own the technology themselves—the technology was the property of the corporations of the advanced capitalist nations. But, the Chinese have developed an excellent educational system and have a scientific establishment of great skill. So, the Chinese have broken the contract laws and patent laws and or “stealing” technology. Chinese companies have begun producing cars, computers, cell phones, and other high tech products, without their joint partners. They also make military equipment, port facilities and container depots, and even have gone into space. As is well-known, China’s economy is the fastest growing capitalist economy in the world. China, however, is still dependent on the technological advances of American and European companies. And, the cheap labor force is beginning to demand—and receive—better wages. Therefore, whether China will become independent of the joint ventures is not clear. In the meantime, upward mobility in China has been dazzling. A new middle class is expanding in all of China’s cities. So the incentive for the poor to work in the factories is strong, for, they know their children will get an education and move up into the middle class.4 In Hong Kong, the poor were rapidly absorbed into the labor force and their children carefully educated to attain middle-class status—even the “boat people’s” children were educated. And, Hong Kong’s banks and financial firms became fabulously wealthy as intermediaries between China and the advanced nations. And, of course, Hong Kong has retained its attachment to British democracy and law, while China’s dictatorial government is attempting to undermine Hong Kong’s democracy an override its law. In terms of the transition to high technology industrial capitalism, however, China and Hong Kong exhibit a model of development which can be copied by other nations. Mexico and Brazil are attempting a similar joint venture, cheap labor endeavor. And this process is successful in these countries. Cheap labor abounds in Mexico and Brazil—and the Mexicans have a work ethic that is quite ingrained, dating back to the days of the Mayan, Toltec, and Aztec Empires.

4

Karl Marx, Capital, International Publishers, 1948.

234

26

The Economic Transition to High Technology Industrial Capitalism

However, neither Mexico nor Brazil have the educational system or the Confucian ethic of learning and studying and high status for the intellectuals that China has. When China steals the technology of the advanced nations, their scientists and engineers can reproduce it. This is not yet the case in Mexico and Brazil. Nonetheless, the Chinese model is a model that can be copied—joint ventures with advanced capitalist corporations plus cheap labor in the indigenous nation. This combination works. Taiwan has followed this model, with both American and Japanese corporations supplying the technology and the Taiwanese supplying the cheap labor. As with China, the Taiwan-Chinese—steeped in the Confucian reverence for learning—have been quick to develop scientists and engineers of their own, and to begin manufacturing products in competition to their American and Japanese counterparts. Carbon fiber bicycle frames are a perfect example. An American company, “Trek Bicycles,” opened a joint venture in Taiwan. Five years later, almost all carbon fiber bike frames were made in Taiwan. Then, a Taiwanese company, “Specialized,” put out its own bike using their own patented carbon fiber frame, and Japanese-style components manufactured in Taiwan. Specialized sells its bikes cheaper than Trek, and has become a competitor. Further, the political system of Taiwan was superimposed on it by the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek, who, losing to Mao in the Civil War of 1948, fled to Taiwan—Chiang and his whole army took up residence in Taiwan. As is well known, the Kuomintang ruled authoritarianly. There was no democracy in Taiwan. This embarrassed the American government which had supported Chiang against Mao. So, under American pressure, Taiwan began to elect a representative government. It took time to become institutionalized. Chinese culture was authoritarian for centuries. Eventually, both the democracy and the capitalism took off. Both became institutionalized successfully in Taiwan. For, Taiwan is prosperous, and its new middle class is well-educated and entrepreneurial. Business, technology, and democracy are flourishing in Taiwan, as they had been in Hong Kong. Taiwan’s transition was similar to China economically, but with American military control, the movement to democracy was facilitated. Whereas in China, the Communist Party has expanded its dictatorial control to totalitarian dimensions (as we have described earlier). South Korea followed the Japanese model of industrialization. This model differs from the American and Europeans in that giant conglomerates, in partnership with the government dominate all economic production. Corporate management, rather than entrepreneurial business acumen, characterizes these economies. They are not creative in the usual capitalist sense, but they are remarkably efficient and productive, in the industrial sense. Now, usually, when corporations get too big and too diverse in their production areas, they become bureaucratic and inefficient. Max Weber warned about

The Transition to Advanced Capitalism

235

bureaucracy and its tendency toward inefficiency and obstructiveness.5 This is why state-run economies are not good—it is why communism failed as a model of economic development.6 So, how is it that the Japanese and Korean economies are efficient and the corporate managers are not obstructive? The answer is that when the Japanese were industrializing, though they were stealing technology from Europe and the USA, they learned factory efficiency from American “efficiency experts.” Frederick Winslow Taylor, famous in the USA for his theories of productive efficiency, was so influential in Japan that the Japanese corporations outstripped the American corporations in efficiency of production.7 And, the Japanese corporate managers were taught by their American advisors to seek both efficiency and profit. No obstruction was tolerated, and every effort was made to increase efficiency and corporate profits. Managers in Japan were literally “retired” into government jobs before they could become too rigid and too domineering. Thus bureaucratic obstructionism and inefficiency were avoided in Japan, as they copied American “efficiency experts” in their factory system. However, the Japanese are not entrepreneurial—not business oriented—not creative in business applications or in. technology creation—realizing this, the Japanese, after World War II, have been funding American and European “think tanks” and then importing the technological innovations. The Japanese may not be good at creativity in technology, but, they are great at making engineering improvements in the technology once it is invented. They are wonderful “reverse engineers”—that is, taking a product apart and then making improvements in it. A good example, again from bicycles, is the “10 Speed Rear Derailleur.” The French invented it, the Italians manufactured it, but neither could “index” it—that is make shifting precise. The Japanese took the system apart, and, they indexed it. Japanese-made gears are perfectly precise. Korea, occupied by Japan for more than a century, copied the Japanese conglomerate system after World War II. One would have thought that the Koreans would have copied the American system, but they were more influenced by the Japanese during World War II and immediately after.8 There is some similarity in culture—though the Koreans loved Chinese culture and hated the Japanese—yet the system of giant conglomerate corporations has worked well for the Koreans. The South Koreans manufacture everything the Japanese manufacture. And, they have been successful in this competition. Cars,

Max Weber, Economy and Society “Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich”, New York, Academic Press, 1961. 6 Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, NY, Amazon, 2012. 7 Ibid. 8 Thomas Piketty, Capitalism and Inequality, Amazon Books, 2018. 5

236

26

The Economic Transition to High Technology Industrial Capitalism

televisions, computers, smart phones, and huge cargo ships—the South Koreans make and market all these things.9 The South Korean economy is another Asian-Tiger miracle. And, it is different from China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. It is like the economy of Japan. Is it a model that can be copied by other countries? Probably, yes. And, to round out this discussion of South Korea’s transition economically, in the last 20 years, American influence has been huge. So now, South Koreans or becoming entrepreneurial in small businesses, in music, in filmmaking—whole new industries are emerging in South Korea beyond the giant conglomerates. It is an exciting time in South Korea as their pop-culture and their business culture expands beyond that of Japan.10 What of South Korea politics? The transition from traditional authority to rational-legal authority is difficult. I shall discuss this shortly. In South Korea, a family dynasty was attempted to be established by the Park Family. They were dictatorial, but because of the American occupation, the repression and violence were inhibited. Without the American presence, a dictatorial dynasty might have become established. But, under American pressure, and as the economy rapidly modernized, the dynastic dictatorship was overthrown. After a period of chaos and military rule, a representative democracy was eventually established. This democracy has been functioning well. And, with the spectacular growth of the economy, South Korea has now become a model to emulate, both economically and politically.11 Both advanced capitalism and democracy have become institutionalized in South Korea. So, what about North Korea, why is it so different? To answer this question, we must analyze the Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist models of development.

Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism We have discussed the history and structure of Russian communism and Chinese communism in our section on “Tyranny.” Here we wish to describe the Russian model, because it became a model for emulation in many developing nations after World War II. In Russia, in 1917, with little or no industrialization, the communist revolutionaries had to innovate. Since there was no business class in Russia, the Communist Party intellectuals, under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, directed and managed the emerging industrial economy.

9

Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation. Oxford Press. (On phalanges) Ibid. 11 Philip II of Macedon Developed the Macedonian Phalanx plus Cavalry. 10

Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism

237

With no business-class pushing for efficiency in production, the government run industries developed against the impediment of bureaucratic obstruction and inefficiency. Lenin and Trotsky seem to have recognized this problem. In their “New Economic Policy” period, They began to allow farmers and shopkeepers to retain some profit in their endeavors. The “New Economic Policy” was beginning to become successful, when Lenin suddenly died. With Stalin’s takeover, the New Economic Policy was dropped. The successful farmers had their land confiscated, and they were sent to Siberia. All small businesses were abolished. The state took over all production. The economy became a “command economy” that is, all industrial production was ordered by the government—only the quantity of products was demanded—quality was not the goal, or efficiency in production. The products produced were shoddy. And only the military products were improved in quality. Then World War II hit and Russia was invaded by Germany. After World War II, with the nation in shambles, Stalin ordered the command economy to rebuild Russia. Again, consumer goods and housing were built badly, and only military goods were improved. Russia became a mighty military power, but its consumer industries were shameful. All government-run production was inefficient and bureaucratically clogged up. So, why would this Stalinist model be copied? The answer is simple: it produced a mighty military organization. Thus, Mao followed the Stalinist model closely. The result was the same: great military power, no consumer goods industries. Cuba went the same route as China, with similar results—so did North Korea. Because of the failure of China’s economy, communism as a model for developing nations has declined. However, North Korea had already gone Stalinist-communist before China’s economic weaknesses were evident. The Korean War ended with North and South Korea divided up—China and Russia supported North Korea and the USA the South. And, as with Stalinist Russia, North Korea has developed an awesome military— they cannot feed their population, and their people have nothing in the way of modern consumer goods, but, North Korea has missiles and atom bombs.12 Even though North Korea is militarily powerful—and the greatest threat to world peace in the twenty-first Century—the developing nations can see that the population is starving, the people frightened and terrorized into active submission—a contradiction in terms, but a reality in actuality—the people must enthusiastically support the Kim regime, or go to prison with their whole family. Because of the failure of the North Korean economy, it is not a model for the developing nations. South Korea—modeled on the Japanese economy—is a model that can be emulated. Hong Kong and Taiwan, however, are the more likely models

12

Gabriel Zucman, The Hidden Wealth of Nations, University of Chicago Press, 2015.

238

26

The Economic Transition to High Technology Industrial Capitalism

for most developing nations to follow, because they involve joint ventures with American or European companies. Whether this latter model will prove effective in the Third World is still to be determined—Mexico and Brazil and the Philippines showing the strengths and weaknesses of this model. And, of course, the outsourcing of jobs to the Third World has had negative effects on the advanced nations leaving their working classes unemployed and supporting right wing nationalist parties that destabilize democracy. The transition to high technology industrial capitalism is a difficult process, both for the developing nations, and the advanced nations.

Chapter 27

The Cultural Transition: From Traditional Religious Values to P.C. Values

The Cultural Transition: From Traditional Religious Family and “Tribal” Values to the “Politically Correct” Values, on Racial Equality, Gender Equality, Gay Liberation, and Multiculturalism The term “politically correct,” or PC, is often used in a negative way by those opposed to the new values. Here, in this treatise, we do not use the term “PC” in a negative or a positive way. We use it to designate a dramatic change in cultural values involving race, ethnicity, gender, and an emerging world culture. Those who oppose these changes are clinging to traditional values that—until recently—were fully accepted, though varying from nation to nation. These traditional values did not originally support racism, sexism, or anti-gay actions. However, in the modern context they have sometimes exhibited racist, sexist, anti-gay, and cultural superiority. This transition, therefore, has had profound and conflict filled results in many of the world’s nations, as they move toward modernity.

Racial Equality Racism was endemic to the European colonial domination era of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The “white man’s burden” was to civilize the black, brown, and yellow races.1 The British Empire epitomized such racially superior attitudes, and the French and the Dutch followed in the same racially superior paths. All over the globe, in the colonial countries, this kind of racism was typical.

1

Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s Burden, Wikipedia.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_27

239

240

27

The Cultural Transition: From Traditional Religious Values to P.C. Values

The German Nazis took racism to a new and horrifying level, including ethnic differences as racial differences. So, the Jews and the Gypsies were considered inferior “races,” and, of course, the blacks were considered even lower in the racial scale. The “Blond Beasts” of the “Aryan” north of Europe were considered superior to all other “races”—above the Italians and the Slavs, who were negatively stereotyped as inferior. In the USA, the WASP2 majority considered the Jews, the Italians, the Irish, and of course, the blacks, as inferior. These inferior races were kept out of the Ivy League Colleges, the private clubs, and residential neighborhoods. Now, the colonial era is over, and the horrors of the Holocaust against the Jews, slavery against the Africans, and the attempted genocide of the native Armenians, created a backlash against the entire era of racial and ethnic discrimination. Yes, the PC norms sometimes seem extreme, but they must be viewed in relation to what they replaced. The racism and discrimination against ethnic minorities was so horrific in the colonial era and during World War II, that a new set of norms and values regarding race and ethnicity became necessary in order to protect racial and ethnic minorities worldwide. Thus, in today’s modern nations—and in the developing nations—legal protection for racial and ethnic minorities is guaranteed in many—but not all—modern national constitutions. The United Nations Charter and Bill of Human Rights also contains legal protections for racial and ethnic minorities. All across the globe, there is still racial and ethnic discrimination, and even “ethnic cleansing”—attempts at genocide. Whether it is the Han Chinese against the Uyghurs, or the Burmese against the Bangladeshis or the French against the Algerians in their midst, or the Southern American whites against the blacks, or the Bantus against the Bushmen in South Africa—discrimination is still occurring, and so too is “ethnic cleansing.” However, there is a worldwide movement against racism and discrimination against ethnic minorities. It is this global movement towards the acceptance of racial and ethnic equality that represents the first portion of the new cultural transition. And, make no mistake about it, these new “PC” values have powerful support from the college-educated new middle classes worldwide. This support is led by the humanistic leaders in the United States, the UK, and the EU. But, the leaders of the developing nations have been pressured by the United Nations leadership to abide by these new values embodying racial and ethnic equality. Attempts at genocide, whether they be in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Burundi, or China, have been met with opposition at the U.N., and, at the World Court in The Hague (The Netherlands).3 Racist criminals receive little sympathy from the world’s peoples. And, the new middle class—worldwide—accepts the notion of racial and ethnic equality.

2 3

E. Digby Baltzel, The Protestant Establishment. Amazon, 2001. The World Court is in The Hague in the Netherlands.

Gender Equality: Women’s Liberation

241

The recent mass protests around the world generated by the Black Lives Matter movement in the USA, reinforces the idea that the racial equality is now a worldwide phenomenon, gaining in its acceptance globally.

Gender Equality: Women’s Liberation The liberation of women has had more impact on the world’s societies than the atomic bomb. Women’s liberation effects marriage, family, gender roles, religion, the workplace, and the political arena. Every basic institution in society is altered by this social phenomenon. Marriage has become “partnership marriage”—with a 50% divorce rate! Family has become the “dual-career” couple—fertility rates have dropped to one child in many countries, such as Italy and China (it was enforced in China due to the population explosion there during the 1960s; while in Italy it evolved socially because the modern Italian women refused to become the old-fashioned Italian mama, coddling their “mammoni” sons.)4 In terms of gender roles, the new woman can do anything: run marathons, pole vault, do triathlons, become mathematicians and scientists, combine careers with child rearing and breast-feeding, and, join the military in combat roles. When Plato, in his Republic, asserted that women were the equal of men in one critical way—their intellect—and then asserted that women should participate in politics, and, join the military as part of the hoplite phalanx and archery corps,5 his contemporaries disagreed strongly. Plato even proposed state nurseries, where babies and children could be cared for, such that women could be liberated and still produce enough children to reproduce their city-state. Aristotle disagreed sharply with Plato, asserting that women were inferior to men because they were “emotional,” not rational. And Aristotle asserted that this difference is biological—women are evolved to raise children, and so should be emotional.6 For centuries, European men followed Aristotle, asserting that women were not fit for the political or economic spheres because they are emotional, and, that they should, therefore, stay within the family. In today’s world—the modern world—Plato has been vindicated. Women have moved from the family into the job world and the political arena. And, the movement of women into the military and Olympic level sports has obliterated the male opposition to women’s liberation. However, women are still the only gender who can give birth and breast-feed babies. Someday there may be laboratory produced babies, whereas pregnancy is not

The Italian men who want their girlfriends to become like their mother are called “momones.” Plato, The Republic, London, Penguin Classes, 1950. 6 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. 4 5

242

27

The Cultural Transition: From Traditional Religious Values to P.C. Values

necessary. There is already baby formula from cows milk and goats milk that makes breast-feeding optional. Are women more emotionally connected to babies and children than men? Should women do more of the child rearing than men? The dual-career couples are working these things out, but the 50% divorce rate stands as a warning that these gender issues are not easy to resolve. In this treatise, we wish to emphasize the conflict between men and women over women’s liberation from the family into the economic, political, and military spheres of life. The key factor is that working-class men—men without a college education—tend to be resistant to women’s liberation. They feel threatened by women leaving the family, and, even more threatened by women entering the workplace and the political arena. These working-class men—whether they be Italian, Greek, Japanese, or American—want the women to be mothers and wives. They do not want women to be marathon runners, jet fighter plane pilots, prime ministers, or CEOs. Therefore, the old left parties, such as the Social Democrats in Europe and the Democratic Party in the USA—insofar as they have championed women’s liberation—have lost the support of the working class men. And, since the conservative business parties have also embraced the women’s cause, they also have lost the working class role. Thus, in Europe, and within the Republican Party in the USA, right wing movements, asserting male macho and racist, anti-immigration policies, have grabbed the working class vote. So, the modern transition, including racial equality and gender equality has created a backlash and is straining the politics of the modern democracies. The Gay Liberation movement has exacerbated the situation.

Gay Liberation and New Definitions of Gender Gay liberation followed women’s liberation in the early 1970s. Though women’s liberation had a long history from Plato’s ideas in ancient Greece to the modern suffragette movement demanding the women’s vote, to Marx’s Communist demand that no “class” distinction should exist concerning women and men, gay liberation happened suddenly, and caught the world by surprise. One minute homosexuality was a biblical sin—an abomination against God7— hidden “in the closet” and barely raised to social awareness, and the next minute it was out in the open and re-termed as “gay.”8 Epithets like “fag” and “queer” and “dyke” were categorized as “hate speech,” and “LGBTQ” rights were championed by modernist movements—worldwide.

7 8

Oxford Study Bible, Leviticus. Film: The Bird Cage; French original La Cage aux Folles, American remake, 1996.

Multiculturalism Versus “Tribalism” and Nationalism

243

Gay liberation is now a global phenomenon, with American, British, French, and Hong Kong Chinese filmmakers featuring films favoring gay liberation and condemning prejudice against gays.9 In this treatise, we wish to emphasize that—as with women’s liberation—working class men—globally—tend to oppose gay liberation. Again, it is male macho which is threatened by gay liberation. Right wing, dictatorial leaders, tend to portray themselves as macho—very masculine, willing to be violent, and domineering both socially and politically. Vladimir Putin embodies this image. He rides a horse shirtless, he asserts his use of political power against opponents. And, he encourages the revival of the Russian Orthodox Christian Church, which opposes gay liberation an women’s liberation. Donald Trump, in the USA, similarly flaunts his womanizing as proof of his macho masculinity, and openly embraces dictators like Putin, Erdoğan, and Kim Jong-un. Trump makes his appeal to the white working-class men in the USA— demonizing Hillary Clinton, while encouraging racism and domineering masculinity. Opposition to gays has also been part of Viktor Orbán’s platform in Hungary, along with Catholic “family values,” and virulent anti-Semitism. Orbán has demonized George Soros—the Hungarian born Jew who made a fortune in America and then tried to help Hungary democratize. Orbán not only hates Soros because he is Jewish, but also because Soros’s University in Budapest advocated for women’s liberation and gay liberation. Orbán notwithstanding, this summer 2019, in Budapest, there was a huge gay liberation rally in which thousands of young Hungarians applauded gay couples— male-male and female-female—showing affection in public. Still, the new left and the new right are at odds over gay liberation, and this modern transition, which is global, does generate political conflict which can, and has, destabilize democracies.

Multiculturalism Versus “Tribalism” and Nationalism This portion of the modern transition has produced what the political scientists have called “identity politics.”10 Two trends are occurring globally at the same time—two opposite and antithetical trends. On the one hand, a world culture is emerging, grounded in the university education which is focused on science and a rational worldview concerning the universe, the natural world, and the human social-historical world.

9

Film: Brokeback Mountain, 2005. Francis Fukuyama, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, NY, Amazon, 2019. 10

244

27

The Cultural Transition: From Traditional Religious Values to P.C. Values

Modern, college educated individuals—whether they are educated in Germany, Japan, France or China, will study the same scientific principles in physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, mathematics and any other scientific disciplines, such as medicine. And, they will also rationally assess their own history in world history in a similar manner. History, social science, literature, art, music—they have all become comparative, and are all studied globally. Thus, a world scientific and social-scientific global culture is emerging crossnationally. As an example, in 2019, a Chinese opera singer pointed out, in a New York Times article, that Madame Butterfly, the Italian opera, which is a world classic, is based on a simplistic stereotype of Asian culture. The opera world in New York and Milan took this very seriously, and will include a qualifying addendum to the libretto given out before each performance. Further, the “Western Civilization,” “Great Books” curriculum has now been amended to include great thinkers from the “Arabic Golden Age,”11 Chinese thinkers from Confucius to Mincins to Xun Xi,12 Hindu and Buddhist books, and more. There is now a “global studies” great books sequence, in which the Chinese study Aristotle and the Europeans study Confucius. So, there is a world culture emerging in terms of college and university education. Along with this “high culture,” there is also a “pop” culture emerging worldwide. Korean rock groups “rap” and dance “hip-hop.” Game of Thrones becomes a global hit—millions around the world watching this British made drama—which, by the way, emphasizes sexual liberation, gay liberation, women’s liberation, lack of prejudice against dwarfs, and, at the same time, includes graphic violence and sociopathic, anti-humanistic values. Also, YouTube videos are shared by millions of people all across the world. The new high-technology computer-internet phenomenon is connecting the people of the world together as they never have been before. Sharing both a high culture of scientific and rational knowledge, and a “pop” culture of rock music and dance, and entertainment in films and streamed television series—a world culture has truly begun to emerge. Citizens of differing nations now, not only share similar ideas and trends, but can connect with each other by way of the internet, Skype, and smart phones. We talk to each other—with English as the modern “lingua-franca”—we write to each other, we meet in cyberspace. Families, friends, colleagues, and like-minded individuals communicate easily between the USA, the UK, the EU, China, Japan, Mexico, etc. The new middle class worldwide has so much in common that national and cultural differences become minimized, as mutual understanding becomes more universal. There is mutual understanding because we all share the rational-scientific worldview, and a set of

11 Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Philosophy in the Arabic Golden Age, NY, Amazon, 2013; Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Philosophy in the Arabic Golden Age, NY, Amazon, 2013. 12 Confucius, The Analects, NY, Amazon, 2000.

Multiculturalism Versus “Tribalism” and Nationalism

245

modern values based on “humanism”—a caring attitude towards all humans, and even animals, in the shared world we call Earth. At the same time, however, that the world culture is emerging and that the world’s citizens are becoming increasingly enmeshed with one another in scientific and social endeavors, the exact opposite trend is occurring. That is, the world culture has engendered a backlash—each nationality—each “tribe”—is attempting to keep its unique cultural identity. Each nationality is attempting to assert its cultural superiority, its gifts to the world, its beauty. There has been a rabid revival of “nationalism”—more like a “tribalism”—our tribe is unique; our tribe is superior; our tribe is the true people—the other tribes are not fully human. Right-wing political movements have asserted nationalistic or tribalistic superiority as part of their political program.13 Immigration becomes a threat to this kind of tribalistic naturalism, because the immigrants are from a different “tribe” or ethnic group, or racial group, or religious group—they are different, and if we let them in, our tribal culture will be overwhelmed and destroyed. This kind of identity politics has caused panic and generated right-wing support. Examples of this new “tribalism” include “Brexit” in the UK, where both AngloSaxon Norse tribalism and Celtic tribalism seem to have been threatened by the immigration issue—open borders in the EU meant more immigration of Arabs and Africans, along with the British Empire immigration of Pakistanis, Indians, and West Indians of African descent. The Le Pen movement in France is staunchly anti-immigrant, especially Muslim immigrants from North Africa. The Hungarian and Polish right-wing parties are strongly pro-Magyar and pro-Polish an anti-Muslim immigration. Even in Greece, the Golden Dome Party has been anti-Muslim immigration, as has been the Five Store Party in Italy. The Chinese too—though, of course, not a democracy—has become “Han” Chinese-oriented, turning on Tibetan in Muslim minorities, and socializing them— against their will—to Han Chinese language and culture. Finally, in the USA the WASP majority is no longer a majority—people of English, Scottish, Dutch, German, and Scandinavian descent are no longer a majority in America, and they have supported Trump in his anti-immigration campaign to keep out the Mexican and Central American immigrants—the WASPs do not want any more “Brown” Latino people in the country. And, working-class Catholics of Irish, Italian, and Polish descent—who used to resent the WASP majority—have now joined with them in their opposition to the Latino, Brown immigration. “Build A Wall,” says Trump, and the right wing white voters love it. Let me conclude, then, on the transition from nationalism to multicultural world citizenship. There is a world culture emerging and this world culture is based on a

13 Right Wing Nationalists: Le Pen; Brexit British; Order & Justice in Poland and Hungary; Islamic Party in Turkey.

246

27

The Cultural Transition: From Traditional Religious Values to P.C. Values

mutually accepted rational-scientific worldview, along with the mass media generated pop-culture that is also shared worldwide. The computer internet age has linked the world’s citizens together in a cyber world that feels immediate and intimate. Because of this interconnected cyber reality, and the world culture it has helped generate, national and cultural differences are becoming minimized. This phenomenon has generated a desperate backlash, as each national group tries to preserve and protect, its cherished cultural uniqueness. So, “identity” politics is accompanying the globalization of the world culture. Let us look more closely at this, as the last portion of the modern transition focuses on: the rational-scientific worldview, and, secular humanism which make up the “Zeitgeist”14 of modernity.

14

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of History. 1837.

Chapter 28

The New Worldview: The Rational Scientific Worldview, and, Secular Humanism

Along with the dramatic change in the cultural values from traditional religious and family values to values emphasizing equality—racial equality, women’s equality, and gay equality, there is also an ongoing change in the zeitgeist, or worldview.

Hegel and Human Consciousness of Self and the World Hegel in his Philosophy of History,1 asserts that modern science and German Protestantism represent the pinnacle of human consciousness. He emphasizes human consciousness turned toward self-consciousness and the rational analysis of the universe and social world. Though Marx “stood Hegel on his head” in terms of material causes outweighing spiritual causes in the progressive stages of human history,2 Hegel’s notion that rational science and German Protestantism represented a progressive stage in the zeitgeist is very relevant to the modern fourfold transition. Of course, advanced high-technology capitalism is at the core of the modern transition. But, so is science. Without the development and expansion of science— from the ancient Greek science to the Italian Renaissance science to modern global science—there would have been no Industrial Revolution and no high-technology industrial capitalism. So, Hegel’s idea of human consciousness turned toward self-consciousness, means that modern individuals conceived of themselves as able to assert control over “nature”—at least in some capacities—and able to analyze nature (the world) in a rational way. No longer are humans afraid of nature, as they were in the primeval

1 2

George Hegel, The Philosophy of History, NY Amazon, 2011. Karl Marx, “I stand Hegel on his head,” material causality.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_28

247

248

28

The New Worldview: The Rational Scientific Worldview, and, Secular Humanism

stage,3 nor are humans worshiping nature, as they were in the early civilizational stage. No, humans in the modern world are attempting to rationally understand natural phenomena, and, when possible to control these natural events.

The Rational-Scientific Worldview The rational-scientific worldview presents modern humans with a set of rational, theoretical explanations for what occurs in the natural world. So, for instance, when we hear thunder, we do not think the Sky God is angry and hurling lightning bolts at us. No, we think, electricity is generated from a chemical reaction in clouds of moisture, and the electricity is grounded in a lightning strike, and, the lightning strike creates a vacuum into which air—a gas made up of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and helium—rushes in making a loud noise. When we look up at the sky, we do not see “heaven,” we see stars and planets, and galaxies, and an expanding universe begun by a “Big Bang.”4 When someone is sick, we know the cause could be “germs”—bacteria and viruses—that can be seen only with a microscope. The scientific worldview has allowed us to travel into space, set foot on the moon, and, create hydrogen bombs that could wipe us all out. The rational-scientific worldview has given human beings enormous new power, and has both increased our sense of self, and diminished it. That is, our sense of self is enormously increased by our new found rational understanding of the universe around us and our physical and psychological self. In this sense, Hegel is correct that human self-consciousness has been raised to a new level of confidence in relation to nature and society. However, because of our discovery that the universe seems to be expanding infinitely, we also feel like insignificant specs on a small obscure planet—strangely conscious creatures on a “Big Blue marble” in an infinite universe. Nonetheless, the scientific worldview, because of modern medicine and astrophysics, is becoming widely accepted by all the peoples of the globe. It is an important part of the new worldview—it is an essential part of the modern zeitgeist. Because of the success of the scientific worldview, traditional religious worldviews are declining. Why then did Hegel include German Protestantism as part of what he considered the modern worldview? Hegel believed that the individualism in Protestantism improved human selfconsciousness, and, the fact that Jesus is considered both a man and a God further heightened human self-esteem. And, in his day, German Protestantism was

3 4

George Hegel, The Philosophy of History, NY Amazon, 2011. Stephen Hawking, A Short History of Time, Google Books, 2000.

Secular Humanism and Modern Ethics

249

encouraging science against the restrictions of the Catholic church. If the Pope was banning Galileo’s work, the Protestant North was not only studying it but expanding upon it. But, what about today’s world? Why is the rational-scientific worldview not enough for the modern zeitgeist? Answer: Science is value neutral—science provides no moral or ethical code of behavior. And, science is neutral on spirituality—there is no “proof of the existence of God,” as Thomas Aquinas attempted using Aristotelianism logic.5 Science does not attempt to prove what it cannot study empirically or mathematically. Nor does science affirm a code of moral and ethical behavior. Science has given us so much knowledge about the universe, life, human psychology and sociology, but, science does not provide us with an ethical code of human behavior. Science can analyze whether the death penalty inhibits murder, science can tell us if a person is “brain-dead,” science can tell us how long it will take to fly to Mars, but it cannot tell us whether to ban the death penalty, pull the plug on a “brain-dead” person, or if we should go to Mars. Therefore, because of the ethical and spiritual void in rational-science, some sort of religious belief system must accompany it in order for the modern zeitgeist to be complete. The world transition involving the adoption of the rational-scientific worldview has also been a transition from the various world religions—Judaism, Christianity (Catholic and Protestant), Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism—to some form of secular humanism. This secular humanism can be atheist, agnostic, or theistic.

Secular Humanism and Modern Ethics By secular humanism we mean the world movement to (1) create humane rules of modern warfare and designate certain acts as war crimes. The Geneva Code of Ethical Warfare embodies these humanistic values. (2) The banning and condemning of genocide. The United Nations Charter bans genocide. The Holocaust against the Jews, the genocide against the Armenians, the genocide against the Tutsi, and other horrific attempts around the globe generated such moral outrage that the United Nations banned genocide. The World Court, at The Hague in the Netherlands, tries perpetrators of war crimes and crimes of genocide, and stands as a world court upholding humanistic values. The United Nations also has, as part of its Charter, the International Bill of Human Rights. This Bill includes, not only the rights of political freedom and lawful

5

Thomas Aquinas, Politics and Ethics, London, Penguin Classics, 1950.

250

28

The New Worldview: The Rational Scientific Worldview, and, Secular Humanism

democracy, but also such social rights as the right to an education and to economic self-sufficiency. Thus, outside the framework of the world’s religions—though based to some extent on their moral codes—a set of moral and ethical principles has emerged as part of the new global culture of the modern world. These ethical principles are based on the respect for human life that now characterizes our modern ethos. This modern humanistic ethos is part of a new “civil religion”6 that has emerged. And though it is derived from Judeo-Christian values—“every life is valuable and sanctified by God”7—it has emerged outside of the world religions because these religions are often at odds with one another. How many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, in the past and still in the present? Because of these still festering religious conflicts around the world, the modern humanistic moral code is not based on any religion in particular, but rather set moral parameters for behavior in the world beyond any of the world’s religions. In this sense, the new humanism is a “civil religion”—a concept borrowed from Durkheim, who borrowed it from De Tocqueville. Just as American democracy was seen by De Tocqueville as our “civil religion,”8 the New World ethical code, embodied in the United Nations Charter and The World Court, can be viewed as a global civil religion. Now, what about the spiritual component? We have no idea why we are here, why we possess heightened consciousness such that we know we are here, why life exists, why the universe exists, whether the universe had a beginning or will have an end, or, how we should act in the world given these mysteries. This is why religion emerged in the first place. However, religion cannot answer these questions any more than science can. We don’t know why we exist or why the universe exists. Secular humanism establishes that, even though we have no existential answers, we still must act morally toward one another—every human life is valuable and worth protecting. This is simply an ethical judgment. Right and wrong, good and evil are determined by their effect on human beings. Whatever helps humans and cares for humans is right and good, whatever harms humans is wrong and evil. What about God? Secular humanism can be atheistic, agnostic, or theistic. It was once thought that atheism would lead to sociopathic and criminal behavior. Thomas Moore, in Utopia,9 says that you can believe whatever you want in Utopia, but you cannot be an atheist. In the modern world, however, theists have committed as many horrific acts as atheists. Thomas Moore was wrong: one can be an atheist and also be an ethical

Alexis de Tocqueville and Emile Durkheim on “Civil Religion”—In Democracy in America, and the Elementary Forms of Religious Life. 7 Oxford Study Bible, Humans are made in God’s image (Genesis). 8 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America. 9 Thomas Moore, Utopia, London, Penguin, 1949. 6

Secular Humanism and Modern Ethics

251

humanist—this can and is being taught. Where atheism is combined with secular humanism, sociopathic acts are condemned. And since modern atheism is usually combined with secular humanism, ethical behavior is the norm. If atheism is too radical, too anti-theist, too anti-religion, many modern individuals consider themselves agnostic. By this they mean that they do not know if there is a God or there is not a God. They choose not to discuss it. Like Confucius, who would not discuss God, Heaven, or the Afterlife10 subjects of which he said—he knew nothing—the modern agnostic chooses not to discuss questions of God’s existence. These agnostics, however, form the core of the secular humanistic movement in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. What about theists? Of course, one can believe in God—meaning an imminent, moral God—an all-powerful God that intervenes in our everyday life. Or, one can believe in a God that created the universe, but now stands outside of it, as it moves by natural laws.11 Whatever one’s conception of God—imminent or not—one can still adopt an ethical humanistic moral code. Thus, theistic, or deistic12—as the French Philosophe—and the American Founding Fathers called it in Latin—believers are also part of the secular humanism in the modern world. The deists of the American Revolution approved the ethics of the Bill of Rights,13 and Equality before the law,14 as civil religious ethical standards of behavior. And, of course, the deists of the French Revolution offered us “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”15 in the same vein. Secular humanism, as a civil religion, then, can be adopted by any modern individual, whether atheistic, agnostic, or theistic. Further, if a modern individual wishes to retain their world religious beliefs and rituals, this is no problem—as long as they do not violate the moral code of the modern world concerning war crimes, genocide, and the United Nations Bill of Human Rights. Radical Islam, nationalistic Hinduism, and other fanatical movements, must be curbed. Just as the Christian Crusades and Inquisition had to end. World religions in their intended ethical form are compatible with the moral norms of secular humanism. It is the fanatical in-group, out-groups form that needs to be reined in by way of the new secular humanistic civil religion of the world.

10

Confucius, The Analects, NY, Amazon, 2000. The stoics believed in a Creator God who did not intervene. 12 Many of the USA Founding Fathers were Deists. 13 The United States of America Bill of Rights, Library of Congress Edition. 14 The United States of America Constitution. 15 Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Motto of the French Revolution. 11

252

28

The New Worldview: The Rational Scientific Worldview, and, Secular Humanism

The Modern Zeitgeist Thus, the new zeitgeist of the modern era combines the rational-scientific worldview with secular humanism as an ethical accompaniment to value neutral, rational, mathematical, science.

Chapter 29

The Political Transition: From Traditional Authority (Monarchy) to Electoral Democracy with Legal-Rational Authority

The transition from monarchy and aristocracy to democracy and legal-rational authority has occurred numerous times. Firstly, in ancient Greece, and in Carthage1 (a Phoenician city-state); secondly in post-feudal Europe in the Dutch Republic, England, France, and the United States; recently in Spain, Morocco, Jordan, and other developing nations.

Traditional Authority (Monarchy and Aristocracy) Before discussing legal-rational authority, let us make it absolutely clear that traditional authority, as Max Weber2 called it, involving kingship and aristocracy, is a very powerful legitimation system. Just look at England today: the Queen and the Royals command enormous respect. Everyone bows or curtsies to the Queen. She is treated as an awesome figure; she is surrounded by pomp and circumstance; she rides in magnificent coaches; she lives in numerous sumptuous palaces. Yet, she is a little old lady—she is not a good speech maker, she has not been involved in any important decision in the United Kingdom, her opinions and policy positions are barely known. Still, the British and the Americans who visit, continue to be awed by her “office charisma,”3 as Weber put it. The manufactured charismatic effects4 surrounding the British monarchy enhance the Queen’s status and elevate it beyond the commoners.

1

Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. Max Weber, Economy and Society “Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich”, New York, Academic Press, 1961. 3 Ibid. 4 Ronald M. Glassman and William Swatos, Jr., Charisma, History and Social Structure, NY Praeger, 1981. 2

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8_29

253

254

29

The Political Transition: From Traditional Authority (Monarchy) to. . .

From the pharaohs of Egypt to the emperors of China, to the caliphs of Baghdad, and to the French kings at Versailles, monarchy—divine kingship—and aristocracy—those with royal blood—have captured the human imagination and created an irrational legitimacy5 for monarchy and aristocracy. This legitimacy is irrational because the actual king could be a weakling, mentally disturbed, a boy, or a woman, yet, whoever occupies the office of king and sits on the throne is deferred to. This is undoubtedly part of the genetic heritage of humans. Homo sapiens is a group animal, and like other primates, defers to an alpha male. Being both human and animal, homo-sapiens also conceives of gods, and, therefore may project godliness on the dominant leader. Thus, a king rules through power, like an alpha male, but also rules as a God, above the average humans, and invested with a religiously based charisma.6

Rational Legal Authority and Democracy We humans—Homo sapiens—are also endowed with rationality. Our consciousness allows us to think rationally and logically about the world. Therefore, along with Homo sapiens’ potential slavish acquiescence to divine kingship, we also have the ability to think rationally and make our own decisions and choose our own leaders in a rational manner. Hence, democracy emerged reinforced by rational-legal legitimacy.7 When the law rules, God and reason rule. When a man rules, we add the character of the beast.8

This Aristotelianism statement says it best. But, after centuries of monarchies worldwide, why is rational-legal authority emerging strongly now in many nations?

Rational-Legal Authority Is Reinforced by the Rational-Scientific Worldview We have discussed the rational-scientific worldview as part of the zeitgeist of the twenty-first Century.

5 Arthur J. Vidich and Ronald M. Glassman, Conflict and Control: Challenge to Legitimacy of Modern Governments, Greenwood, 1980. 6 Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, New York, Amazon, 2011. 7 Ronald M. Glassman, The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States, and Nation-States, 2017. 8 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960.

Rational-Legal Authority Is Reinforced by the Rational-Scientific Worldview

255

The rational-scientific worldview emerged in ancient Greece. Thales9 is usually credited as the first rational scientist, and his students Anaxagoras and Anaximander continued his teachings.10 From Miletus, Thales home city, and other Asia Minor Greek cities, other scientific thinkers followed. Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Leucippus, Democritus and many others expanded the empirical, mathematical, experimental, and hypothetical method and theories of science.11 Expanding throughout the Hellenistic period, especially in Alexandria, the rational-scientific endeavor continued into the Roman Era. Shut down by the early Christians,12 rational science was revised during the Arabic Golden Age.13 Shut down again by Muslim fanatics14 (and the Mongolian sack of Baghdad), rational science emerged once again during the Italian Renaissance. Shut down once more by the Roman Catholic Popes, the rational-scientific worldview was moved north, where Galileo’s notebooks generated a scientific revolution in the Protestant countries (with France joining the scientific effort and ignoring the Italian Popes).15 Here in the modern world of the twenty-first Century, the rational-scientific worldview has become a global phenomenon. All the world’s nations are participating in this rational-scientific endeavor. All the scientists of the world meet together and share each other’s findings. This does not prevent nationalism or geopolitical competition. Nor does it create world peace. However, the international science of the scientific enterprise has engendered a growing college-educated new middle-class who share a similar background in the scientific disciplines. This new middle class, which is emerging in all the advanced and developing nations, sees the world through a scientific lens. When they look up, they do not see “Heaven,” they see planets, stars, galaxies, and an expanding universe. When they are sick, they go to a doctor or hospital, not to a priest or shaman. When they are upset, they seek counseling from trained professional psychologists, not a witch doctor. So, why are we discussing the rational-scientific worldview here? Because the rationality in science reinforces the rationality in legal-authority. If one is educated to a rational-scientific worldview one is likely to understand and accept that rational law should govern all political actions; that no one is godly, so there can be no kings; that no one has royal blood; so there can be no aristocracy.

9

John Burnet, in Early Greek Philosophy (see Thales Chapter), Google Books, 2000. Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Film: Agora, in Spanish-English, about Hypatia in Ancient Alexandria, 2009. 13 Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Philosophy in the Arabic Golden Age, NY, Amazon, 2013; Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Philosophy in the Arabic Golden Age, NY, Amazon, 2013. 14 Al-Ghazali, opposed the study of Greek science during the Arabic Golden Age. 15 Galileo, Notebooks, NY, Amazon, 2010. 10

256

29

The Political Transition: From Traditional Authority (Monarchy) to. . .

And, further, possessing enough of a rational-scientific education, the modern individual feels competent to participate in voting on policy issues, and, even participating as an office holder in a democratically elevated assembly. Thus, the rational-scientific worldview creates the potential for legal-rational authority—the acceptance of written constitutional law as defining political action. Of course, tyranny—rule by force, violence, and terror—can override these rational political processes at any time. As Aristotle put it, “Kings cease to be kings when their subjects cease to be willing subjects. But tyrants rule whether their subjects are willing or not.”16

The Contract Law of Capitalism Reinforces Legal Authority We have discussed contract law and its positive effect on democracy in an earlier chapter. Here we wish to assent again that capitalism cannot function without contract law; That contract law goes all the way back to ancient Sumer and Babylon,17 but it was further developed by the Phoenicians, then learned from the Phoenicians by the Greeks.18 It was the Greeks who extended contract law into the scientific, political and philosophical realms. In science, it was “the laws of nature”19 that scientists needed to discover. In philosophy it was “natural law”20 that governed men’s moral actions—if one were a Stoic. And, in politics, it was constitutional law that govern all political actions.21 Where capitalism exists, with both market dynamics22 and oligopolistic tendencies,23 contract law is necessitated regarding all economic transactions. Since contract law undergirds all capitalist transactions, the idea of rational law guiding political actions becomes logical. Thus, capitalism reinforces legal authority, and, legal authority undergirds democracy—both ancient and modern. It should also be noted, that where capitalism does not exist, or where it is only partially institutionalized, contract law may not be followed, and by extension, constitutional law may not be institutionalized. Thus, in China, a capitalist economy is rapidly emerging, but the dictatorial government does not always honor contract laws—they usually do, but in the case of intellectual property and technology patents, the Chinese have been violating the

16

Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. Samuel Noah Kingsmen, History Begins at Sumer. 18 Karl Polanyi, Trade and Markets in the Early Empires, New York, Free Press, 1952. 19 John Burnet, in Early Greek Philosophy, Google Books, 2000. 20 The stoics, Natural Law Philosophy. 21 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. 22 Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, NY, Amazon, 2012. 23 Karl Marx, Capital, International Publishers, 1948. 17

Educational Equality and Democratic Participation

257

contract law. So, too, has the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship refused to establish a constitutional lawful process of government. And, where this exists in Hong Kong, they are actively attempting to undermine it. The hope for China is that the expansion of the educated, scientifically oriented new middle class will someday in the future, expand so dramatically that its members will fill the Communist Party officialdom to the point where rationallegal political behavior will seem more logical than the tyrannical, totalitarian repression and terror exhibited today. In Russia, it must be mentioned, capitalism and contract law do not exist. The Russian economy is run by gangster “oligarchs,” who act violently and criminally, and selfishly in officiating over the raw materials economy of Russia. Remarkably, Russia has a well-written, excellent constitution, designating legalrational political action, and power limitations and tenure limitations. But, Putin and his henchmen override this Constitution and rule dictatorially. As we write Vladimir Putin is suspending the parliament so that he can change the Constitution to allow him to continue to rule. The good news is that Putin has not simply done away with the Constitution. He has left it in place. Future generations may revive the Constitution and establish legal-rational authority. The new middle class of Russia is well educated; they are scientifically sophisticated; they feel empowered to participate in government. But, will the Russian economy evolved towards market capitalism with contract law, or, will it remain a raw materials export economy dominated by violent oligarchs? In any case, whether Russia changes or not, there is hope for democracy in the world where capitalism generates contract law, and where economic lawfulness leads to political lawfulness.

Educational Equality and Democratic Participation We have established that there must be a transition to rational-legal authority, away from kingship and aristocracy. But democracy demands political participation. Democracy means government by the people—all the people. And, political participation can mean an assembly of all the people—in a small city-state—or participation can mean a vote for each person to elect a representative to a parliamentary assembly—in a mass nation-state. Democratic participation also means that every citizen can run for office and take office with no economic qualifications—no oligarchy, but rather, democracy. And, of course, since kingship and aristocracy are unacceptable in a rational-legal polity, no aristocratic family qualifications are acceptable as well. Participation in both office choosing an office holding is based on equality. There are no economic or social qualifications, therefore, all citizens are equal in their

258

29

The Political Transition: From Traditional Authority (Monarchy) to. . .

ability to vote for office or run for office.24 Herodotus highlights this in the earliest work ever written on democracy—he says that “equality” is the defining characteristic of democracy.25 We have already mentioned that in a capitalist society, there will be economic inequality. However, it is of the utmost importance that wealth should not become a determining factor in political participation. Oligarchy of the rich is not democracy. Therefore, steps must be taken in capitalist societies to prevent the rich from dominating politics. We have discussed this in our first section in the treatise.26 The rich, of course, can fully participate in the democratic process, but their influence must be moderated by campaign finance laws, lobbying restrictions, and progressive taxation. The poor also can fully participate in democratic politics. And, steps must be taken to absorb the poor into the working class, such that they do not engage in “petty crimes,” as Aristotle put it,27 feeling themselves “below the law.” It is important to absorb the poor, not only because of the crime rate, but also because of the poor may tend to follow a tyrant in order to redistribute the wealth of the rich. We used Venezuela as a sad example of this pattern.28 Equality in the modern world—and this was true in ancient Greece as well—is very much dependent on education. Elitist thinkers like Plato believed that the mass of citizens was not well-educated enough to run a democracy intelligently. Therefore, he utopianized about an educated elite—“the guardians”—who would oversee the polity.29 Confucius, too, advocated for an educational elite to run China, though the Emperor ruled with “the mandate” from heaven.30 Theorists such as Polybius, the last of the Greek political theorists, called the Democratic assembly a mob—an ochlocracy—a wild mob dominated by crowd psychology.31 He wanted the educated aristocracy to run the city-states and he lauded the Roman Senate which actually held him captive in Rome! He admired them anyway. Even the American Founding Fathers worried about the lack of education of the common citizens of the early colonies. Thus, though they allowed the House of Representatives to be elected by all the citizens—the Senate was to be chosen by “electors” in each state. These electors were wealthy, well-educated citizens, and it was they who also ran for senatorial office. Even the president was initially chosen by such electors.32

24

Herodotus, Histories, London, Penguin, 1951. Ibid. 26 Ronald M. Glassman, Part I: Oligarchy in this treatise. 27 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. 28 Ronald M. Glassman, Part II: The Poor Against Democracy. 29 Plato, The Republic, London, Penguin Classes, 1950. 30 Max Weber, The Religion of China, NY Free Press, 1956. 31 Polybins, Book VI, The History of Rome, NY, Amazon 2006. 32 The United States of America Constitution. 25

Education, the Expanding New Middle Class, Equality, and Democracy

259

Eventually, of course, the Constitution was amended such that senators were directly elected and so, too, the president—the electoral college being kept to empower the smaller states (whether this latter is good or bad is still being debated). So, the problems of a well-educated citizenry undermined ideas of pure democracy into modern times. Today, in the twenty-first Century, the world’s citizenry is becoming better educated than ever before. More and more individuals are going to college and attaining university degrees. The better educated a citizenry, the better chance for a smooth functioning democracy. Now, even though this connection between education and democracy is crucial, there have been cases such as Nazi Germany, and Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where the citizenry not only has a good education, but also a scientific education. The Germans of the 1930s and the Russians of the twenty-first Century were, and are, welleducated and scientifically grounded. So, education alone does not ensure that a stable democracy will emerge. However, both 1930s Germany and twenty-first Century Rome were in transition from monarchy (in Germany) and monarchy and Communist dictatorship (in Russia). Transitions are difficult; they are accompanied by social anomie, to use Durkheim’s term.33 And, anomie engenders loss of norms and values and a spike in social deviance. If this social anomie is accompanied by political disorder, then tyranny may emerge during the transition—to establish temporary order by way of violence. We will come back to this soon. Here, we wish to affirm that educational excellence can create an expanding middle-class. And, this expanding middle-class exhibits the kind of equality that stabilizes democratic processes of government.

Education, the Expanding New Middle Class, Equality, and Democracy I have written many books on the middle class and its relation to democratic stability.34 I have borrowed extensively from Aristotle—because his theory is very relevant to the twenty-first Century. His notion that the rich believe themselves above the law and seek to over influence democracies, and, that the poor feel themselves below the law, and also undermine democracy, but, that the middle class is moderate, lawful, and educated enough such that they—the middle class—

33 34

Senators and Presidents originally chosen by wealth electors. Emile Durkheim, Suicide, NY Free Press, 1950.

260

29

The Political Transition: From Traditional Authority (Monarchy) to. . .

stabilize democracy and help to run it in the interest of all the citizens—this Aristotelian idea it still very relevant in the modern world.35

The New Middle Class of the Twenty-First Century C. Wright Mills, in his book White Collar,36 describes the new middle class connected to the high-technology industrial capitalist economy of the twentieth and twenty-first Centuries. The new middle class are middle managers of corporations, technocrats, professionals, scientists, doctors, lawyers, accountants, nurses, school teachers, university professors, and secretarial and other office assistants. The old middle-class of small businessmen and shopkeepers is still with us as is a growing number of entrepreneurs attached to the internet and cybersphere. There are also armies of hospital workers and healthcare workers from high level to low level workers—in advanced capitalist economies they all make lower middle class wages. Most new middle class individuals will have a college education—technical, 2 year, 4 year, or university masters or doctorate.

The Majority Middle Class and Political Stability There is no mathematical formula for determining how large a middle-class has to be in the majority. In Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, the middle class is the overwhelming majority. In France, Northern Italy and most of Spain, the middle class is in the majority. Japan has a middle-class majority, as does Hong Kong. However, there are nations such as India, where the middle class is vast and expanding, but by no means a majority—so, too, China. The point here is that in the transition to a high tech capitalist economy and democracy with legal-rational authority, the emerging new middle class is critical. For not only is the new middle class rational-scientific minded, but they tend to be moderate politically—reasonable, open to compromise, open to social changes, and opposed to extremist politics. Herodotus made central in his “dialogue on the forms of government,” that “equality is at the heart of democracy.”37 He meant that in a democracy all citizens are considered equal in voting and holding office—there is no aristocracy based on

35 Ronald M. Glassman, The Middle Class and Democracy in Global Perspective, NY, Greenwood Press, 1982. 36 Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960. 37 C. Wright Mills, White Collar, NY Free Press, 1951.

The Majority Middle Class and Political Stability

261

birth—Royal clans—and there is no oligarchy—with property qualifications for office holding. Aristotle amplifies this idea of equality. He states that a society with a majority middle-class is “blessed,” because the middle class sees its members as equals, and therefore seeks moderate policies and compromises.38 Whereas, the overly rich become selfish and extremist, believing themselves to be above the law; and the poor commit petty crimes and turn to extremist leaders, because they feel themselves to be below the law, excluded from the polity, and therefore seek restitution. Since extremes of wealth generate extremist politics, a society with the majority middle-class avoids this problem. The middle class has enough of an income to be comfortable economically—they reject the excesses of wealth that generate a luxury lifestyle, which they believe lends to moral degeneration. It is not that the middle class does not recognize the rich for their achievements— they do, and they value the entrepreneurial, financial, and managerial talent that have made the rich as wealthy as they are. However, extremes in luxury lifestyle are generally rejected by the middle class—especially where this leads to morally objectionable behavior—sex scandals, marital breakups, drug use, and aristocratic heirs are all rejected by the middle class. Billionaires in the USA, China, the EU, the Arab Emirates—they gain high status, but not if they engage in immoral behavior. In terms of the stability of modern democracy, it is of the utmost importance to establish policies—economic and educational—which ensure that the middle-class will be prosperous and expanding. In the United States today, such policies are lacking. From the 1950s to the 1980s policies were in place to facilitate middle-class prosperity and expansion. But from the 1980s to the present, detrimental policies emerged. These detrimental policies include: college tuition rising from nearly free at the state universities in the 1970s, to $20,000 or more by 2020; concurrently, student loan debt, which did not exist before 1980, is now running into the trillions and bankrupting the parents and children of the middle class. College is the avenue for upward mobility, and now, instead it is becoming the source of debt and downward mobility. Second, the price of housing—both owning and renting—has skyrocketed since the 1980s. America’s middle class was world famous for its suburban lifestyle and its large houses. Now, the children of the middle class cannot afford the housing they grew up in—another source of downward mobility. Becoming indebted for college tuition and rising mortgage prices, the middle class turned to credit card buying. The credit card companies jumped on this raising the interest rates from 5% to 10% to up to 22%. This “usurious” credit card rate further indebted the American middle-class. Finally, from Reagan to Clinton to W. Bush, and to Trump, income tax rates have been cut for the rich, giving the rich a windfall of wealth, while middle-class taxation

38

Herodotus, Histories, London, Penguin, 1951.

262

29

The Political Transition: From Traditional Authority (Monarchy) to. . .

has remained the same. No gain, however, is a loss, because the price of all goods has been going up, while middle-class income salaries have been frozen. More: the cost of health insurance has increased dramatically, and so has the cost of prescription drugs. These higher costs of healthcare have been passed along to the American middle class, hitting them like a tax increase—it is a tax increase. In the EU, the United Kingdom, and Japan, the middle class is doing quite well. Tax policies, university policies, health insurance policies, and other “welfare state” policies have generally supported the middle class in these countries. The problem in the EU and UK is the outsourcing of working-class jobs, which has engendered extremist politics from the working class. Along with immigration— especially Muslims from Syria and North Africa, this combination has angered the working class, such that they have turned to right-wing parties. In China and India the middle class has expanded at an unprecedented rate and, they are well-educated and prosperous. In India, this helps stabilize the democracy, while in China it provides a base for possible future democracy. In this treatise, we wish to emphasize that a well-educated, prosperous middleclass provides stability for modern democracies, an reinforces rational-legal authority. For, the middle class, more than any other, follows the law, acts lawfully, supports the law, and, acts moderately in terms of democratic decision-making. Aristotle’s mantra that a society with a majority middle-class is “blessed,” holds true for modern twenty-first Century nation-states.

Conclusions to the Fourfold Modern Transition: Durkheim, Social Change and Anomie Emile Durkheim has emphasized, in his book, Suicide,39 that during periods of rapid social change, societies exhibit a condition called anomie. Anomie is the loss of norms and values. The old norms and values decline, but the new norms and values are not yet fully accepted. Therefore, people do not know what is right or wrong, good or bad. For instance, in the twenty-first Century, should one seek a divorce or try to save a troubled marriage? Is it better for the children to divorce or stay together? If a woman becomes pregnant, but is not married, should she have an abortion, put the baby up for adoption, keep the baby and raise it as a single mother? If a person is hospitalized and is comatose, should he or she be kept on life support? If so, how long? Allowed to die? If a couple is Catholic and married, should they use birth control, or have as many children as occurs without contraception? If one is an Orthodox Jew, how should a gay person who “comes out” be treated? If men and women are in the military, how should they socialize with one another?

39

Aristotle, Politics, Barker Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1960.

Weber, Political Transitions and Charismatic Leaders

263

So much is in flux in modern society. Women’s liberation has swept across the world, but it is absorbed differently in different societies. How does a Spanish “Don Juan” reconceive women? Should a man train himself to wait for his female partner’s orgasm? How should men and women interact in the workplace, and, can women assume power positions in a way that men can accept? Every aspect of modern social life is changing. And, insofar as the world’s religions often exude the old values, what should be the policy of the world’s churches? How can modern individuals retain their spiritual connection to their religion while rejecting the old values and acting out the new? Durkheim theorizes that during such periods of anomie rates of deviance will skyrocket. Drug addiction, alcoholism, divorce, broken families, and suicide rates will all go up40 and, political extremism can also emerge, in the sense that demagogic or tyrannical leaders will emerge pledging to restore order. For, when anomie occurs, political disorder can occur with it. Why? Because along with rising suicide rates, you get rising crime rates—homicide, rape, muggings, theft—all these criminal activities can and do rise. Therefore, restoring order through government force and violence becomes programmatic for the demagogue or the dictator.

Weber, Political Transitions and Charismatic Leaders Demagogues and dictators may exude charisma. so, following Max Weber, during times of transition from traditional to legal-rational authority, a charismatic leader may emerge to help ease the transition to the new authority system.41 Such a charismatic leader, however, maybe a humanist leader, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, or a violent leader, such as Hitler. Weber wanted a “charismatic, plebiscitary presidency,”42 so that a charismatic leader could emerge, but would be construed by the limitations of power found in constitutional law. However, as we have seen in the twentieth century, charismatic leaders have been able to override democratic limitations of power, where the transition to democracy and law has not been complete—Italy, Germany, and Spain had barely established democracy and legal authority, and Russia and China had never established it.43 To conclude: These transitions are difficult. The establishment of an advanced capitalist economy is difficult, indeed. And, the new norms on racial, gender, and gay equality are shattering traditional religious and family norms and values.

40

Emile Durkheim, Suicide, NY Free Press, 1950. Ibid. 42 Max Weber, Economy and Society “Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich”, New York, Academic Press, 1961. (On charismatic leadership). 43 Ibid. 41

264

29

The Political Transition: From Traditional Authority (Monarchy) to. . .

Yet, the new zeitgeist—the rational-scientific worldview and secular humanism—may form the ideological foundation out of which rational-legal authority and democratic participation in all aspects of government will become feasible.

Epilogue

President Trump Against Democracy Since World War II, the United States of America has been the leader of the Free World—the leader of the Democratic nation-states of the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, and other democratic nations. President Trump has tried to break up the EU—he is all for “Brexit” and wants to disband NATO. He fought with the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France—our democratic allies, while befriending dictators, such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Viktor Orbán, Rodrigo Duterte and others. He openly praises totalitarian monsters like Kim Jong-un, and tells Xi Jinping that it is a good policy to place the Uyghurs in concentration camps. In the USA, he vilified immigrants—especially Hispanic immigrants—calling them rapists and murderers. He encouraged white supremacists, calling them “good people,” and praised the Confederate Generals as representing the American heritage. President Trump opposed the “Free Press,” calling their reporting “fake news,” and, out of Goebbels’ Nazi Playbook, he engaged in telling “the big lie”—he lied openly over and over again, propagandizing American politics as never before. He used Twitter to avoid the Free Press and divide the nation into warring factors. Further, President Trump perverted the Justice Department, such that the rule of law had been bent to his will, rather than to rational-legal authority, which should be politically neutral. During the 2020 election President Trump stirred up a race war, and claimed that the election was rigged. He encouraged armed violence, instead of political debate and thoughtful voting. For democracy to survive in the modern world, the United States of America needs to stand strong and help lead the world to a successful transition to legalrational authority and electoral democracy. If America remains weak and divided

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. M. Glassman, Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76821-8

265

266

Epilogue

and loses its appeal to the world as a model for the future, democracy in the world may fail. In the words of the eloquent, and ever hopeful American historian, Jon Meacham, “Let our better angels prevail.”