“There is no there there.”
- Gertrude Stein
The study of history has long been an
enjoyable activity for me. A conclusion I have drawn from it has been that civilizations
are created by individuals; they are destroyed by collectives. One can see
such dynamics at work in what has been taking place in recent decades in the
collapse of a once life-sustaining Western Civilization. I have discussed this
process in previous articles, as well as in two of my books: Boundaries of
Order, and The Wizards of
Ozymandias. What began as the creation of values that enhance
and celebrate life, ended up sanctifying the systems generated by expectations
that the preservation of once-successful forms would assure future well-being.
Liberty and spontaneity that was essential to creativity became subordinated to
the structured, status quo needs of organizations that are now considered to be
ends in themselves and, thus, “too big to fail.” When individualism was
sacrificed to an institutional imperative, Western Civilization began
its death-march. I explored this theme in another book, Calculated
Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival.
In a culture grounded in individual
liberty, any system that insisted upon the maintenance of existing conditions
and not having to adapt to environmental changes would quickly face extinction.
But if political institutions are available to help preserve the status
quo by forcibly regulating the behavior of others, those able to control the
political machinery can overcome this need to remain resilient. By fostering
enforceable rules that standardize and make uniform the actions of others, the
state gives birth to collectivism, a concept that one dictionary defines
as “a doctrine or system that makes the group or state responsible for the
social and economic welfare of its members.” This idea produces consequences
that are detrimental to the long-term vibrancy of cultures that embrace its
stifling assumptions. Entropic forces accumulate when the liberty of men and
women to adapt themselves to the needs for change are frustrated by the state
suppressing behavior; a behavior that is contrary to the interests of those who
enjoy political power. With “entropy” defined as “energy unavailable for
productive work,” it becomes clear how the state’s regulation, control, and
prohibition of creative activity contributes to the disintegration of
civilizations.
When institutions are shielded from the
necessity of remaining resilient and robust, they lose their capacity for being
what historian Carroll Quigley called an “instrument of expansion” for
producing the values upon which they depend for their survival. When such
restraints are extended by law to all members of society, the culture itself
becomes burdened with rigidity and ossification, turning civilizations into
what historians Will and Ariel Durant termed “stagnant pools left by once
life-giving streams.” Substitute the words “rust belt” for “stagnant pools,”
and the metaphor for modern America becomes evident. Life is a continuing
process of change, of the capacity to adapt to new situations. One can
no more structure life forces in the hope of preserving the dynamic energies
that define life than can the owner of a deceased dog hope to preserve the pet
by taking it to a taxidermist.
As with a small child who threatens to hold
her breath until a parent meets her demands, the life forces will ultimately
prevail in defense of their expression. This is what is occurring in modern
Western nations, with unseen influences so deeply embedded in the nature of
life as to be immune to conscious efforts to describe them in words. Life is
resiliency, and if the living refuse to conduct themselves in harmony with the
existential need for flexibility, they will become extinct. Economic history is
laden with the examples of firms and industries that refused to adapt to
competitive alternatives or creative opportunities and were quickly swept into
the dust-bin of failed systems.
It is neither the “voters” nor “mankind”
nor the combination of any so-called “demographic groupings” that explain the
turbulence of recent elections, secession campaigns, or other
anti-establishment expressions. Psychologists have long articulated what is
known as the “frustration/aggression hypothesis,” the idea that as people’s
purposeful activity is interfered with and intensified, the resulting
frustration they experience may result in violent reactions. Such behavior is a
reflection of the anti-life implications of some persons intervening to
forcibly redirect or prohibit the actions of others. It is another of the many
instances of Newton’s Third Law of Motion (i.e., for every action there is an
opposite but equal reaction). This is the principle that Ron Paul and others
have used to help explain the “blowback” consequences of American foreign
policies. Perhaps it is the life force itself that is mobilizing, at levels
that transcend conscious thought, a veto power over practices that war against
the conditions upon which life depends for its spirited vitality.
Institutions, whose existence depends upon
their being regarded as ends in themselves; and with a need for permanency
whose interests outrank others, are attracted to collectivist thinking.
Collectivism, in turn, is grounded in a belief in objective definitions
of truth, values, and human understanding; qualities that allow for popular
acceptance of state-imposed rules that foster the standardization and
uniformity of conduct upon which the institutional order depends. If the
principles and understanding upon which we act were recognized as varying from
person to person, that the individual nature of life’s diversity finds
expression in our subjective preferences; it would be difficult to
create a hierarchically-structured political establishment. To defend the use
of state-sanctioned violence against others on no higher ground than “my life
and interests are more important than yours,” would upset the schemes upon
which all politics depend.
The Renaissance, Enlightenment,
Reformation, scientific and industrial revolutions, and other transformations
in human understanding – changes that gave birth to Western Civilization itself
– can be traced to Gutenberg’s invention
that helped free individual minds from their captivity. An even-more expansive
awareness of the life-enhancing powers of individuality and decentralized,
informal organizational systems, has been emerging in the aftermath of
computerized technologies – including the Internet. Just as the Industrial
Revolution helped humanity learn how to more abundantly produce the material
values upon which life depends, our current explorations which I regard as the
fourth stage in the “information revolution,” is helping us learn how to live qualitatively
more abundant lives by freely communicating with our multi-billion neighbors in
communities that have no tops or bottoms.
In a word, collectivism is dying a
long-overdue death. But, embracing Dylan Thomas’ advice to “not go gentle into
that good night,” the faithful are making a spectacle of themselves; not unlike
the Luddites who feverishly reacted to the liberating nature of the early
Industrial Revolution by engaging in machine-breaking riots. Current
collectivists remind me of a chicken that has just had its head chopped off. It
noisily and reflexively flaps and flutters around, splattering blood in all
directions, giving the outward appearance of willful action, but with a fate
already determined by the axe.
Having long burdened the rest of humanity
with the smug arrogance that their understanding and values are “objectively
true” – an assumption that provides their elitist-egos the comfort associated
with compelling others to live as the “philosopher-kings” dictate –
collectivists must now confront the reality opening up before them. Principles
and other values that collectivists once pretended to embrace in order to
persuade others to support their policies are now being jettisoned in a
desperate effort to shore up the crumbling foundations of their base of
absolute power. “Free speech” and a “free press” – so useful to them in
acquiring political influence – have been watered down in “speech codes” and
proposals for “gatekeepers” to regulate what persons and what content can get
on the Internet. Objectionable opinions that were once welcomed as expressions
of the “marketplace of ideas,” are now subjected to prior restraint as “hate
speech,” “racism,” “anti-Semitism,” or “xenophobia.” Philosophies that college
students used to read, analyze, and discuss to energize their minds, have given
way to dogmatic forms of “political correctness,” a practice grounded in
illusions of “objective” standards of thinking.
Name-calling has become a substitute for
what were once enjoyable debates and discussions when collectivist ideologies
were dominant. Opposition to the unprovoked initiation of wars – a principle
that underlay the Nuremberg trials – is another casualty in the emerging tradition
of endless wars against endless enemies. Collectivist politicians who once
condemned the influence of great wealth in politics, now enjoy net worths
running into the hundreds of millions of dollars derived from serving major
corporate interests. At the same time, they seek to buy off voters in the same
shabby manner they were bought and paid for by their crony capitalist
supporters. Growing lists of government “entitlements” – such as “free” college
tuitions, “free” medical care, and “free” food,” the costs of which are to be
paid by others – are promised in exchange for voting-booth support.
The rights of “privacy” that were once
considered sacrosanct in a free society, are now routinely invaded in virtually
any manner that state-funded surveillance technologies can produce. The
supposed protections of “due process of law” have little meaning remaining; nor
are there any clear limits on the power of the state to confiscate private
property through taxation, eminent domain, asset forfeiture, or the imposition
of “contractual” obligations. Those whose identities and sense of purpose are
tied up in having power over all of humanity have resorted to justifications
later shown to have no validity (e.g., centralized economic planning). Their appetites
for centralized authority over life found expression in the 1980s with the plea
– supported by some scientists – that the earth would soon experience “global
cooling” (a new “ice age”) unless the state was given the power to regulate
human activity. When the basis for such a prediction was called into question,
the “threat” quickly shifted to “global warming,” and more recently to “climate
change” – with many of the same scientists lining up on behalf of the amended
cause. Like John Maynard Keynes, collectivists have long operated on the
principle “on the basis of my conclusions, I draw my facts.” Even the
democratic process, the collectivists’ last refuge of appeal for popular
support is now under attack from many angles to overturn Donald Trump’s election
victory!
The plight of modern collectivists is
reflected in Gertrude Stein’s words at the beginning of my article. Her “there
is no there there” reference to Oakland, the city in which she was raised, was
not intended as a put-down of the city but was a nostalgic disappointment in
not being able to locate landmarks of her childhood. I suspect that many
collectivists are experiencing a similar wistfulness in no longer being able to
find the cultural benchmarks they grew up presuming to be permanent expressions
of objective truths. The disenchantment of a world that no longer conforms
itself to prescriptions from the past may help to account for the desperation
with which older values can so easily be discarded. Collectivism is now like a
sinking ship with no freight left to throw overboard.
Work being done in the study of chaos and
complexity remind me that the outcome of complex systems will always be
unpredictable. As such, I have no definitive offerings to make regarding the
shapes in our future. I do suspect that the ongoing collapse of
vertically-structured pyramidal power systems will continue, if for no other
reason than life forces insisting upon the individual, spontaneous, and
autonomous nature of life.
“Collectivism” is an idea that is contrary
to the individual nature of our lives. We were conceived, with a DNA unique to
each one of us, because our sperm was able to outrace the 200,000,000
others just as eager to fertilize our mother’s egg. We live and die; feel pain,
joy, happiness, or despair; are able to create and discover; and can mobilize
our own energies, only as individuals. Left to the pursuit of our own
interests, we would probably never be inclined to demote ourselves to purposes
and systems created by others for their self-interested ends. The way in
which collectivism wars against our individuality is reflected in the fact that
the former interests are mandated and enforced by the coercive machinery of the
state.
Though I am mildly amused at watching
collectivists perform their frenzied decapitated chicken dance over the
election of Donald Trump, I see no latent long-term benefits in his
administration. His presence in the White House has so rattled the cages of the
high-church establishment faithful, both in the media and academia, that it was
worth the price of staying up election night watching the majority of voters in
state after state go for Trump. At best, I see his presidency as the illusion
of a break in the sanctified madness of the political management of human
existence; an opportunity for millions to shout “enough!” Hopefully, it might
also provide members of Albert Jay Nock’s “Remnant” time to rediscover the
deeper understanding of the principles underlying social practices that benefit,
rather than sacrifice, the lives of all individuals. Trump’s time in
office may serve as the shaking of a kaleidoscope that supplants a tired image
with fresh and vibrant ones coming from outside the political circus tents. In
much, the same way that our immune systems are able to overcome threats posed
by bacteria and other microorganisms, the decline of collective systems may
serve as a catalyst for fundamentally transforming the destructive nature of
the world we have created for ourselves, our children, and grandchildren.
Perhaps intelligence, rather than structured cunning, can once again inform
human behavior.
Butler Shaffer [send him e-mail]
is Professor Emeritus at Southwestern University School of Law. He is the
author of the newly-released In
Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition, 1918–1938,
Calculated
Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival, and Boundaries
of Order. His latest book is The
Wizards of Ozymandias.
Previous article
by Butler Shaffer: The
Democracy Bubble
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/butler-shaffer/decline-fall-collectivism/
