The world's views reduce to two.

Submitted by Robert Copps (Canada), Jan 14, 2003 at 17:51

Daniel Pipes' restatement of Ken Sanes's ideas doesn't quite go far enough. We can reduce all ideologies from the dawn of civilization to variants on two central themes. The following is an article I posted on Stratfor.com a couple of years ago. Anyone who enjoyed Pipes' latest article might find it interesting:

Most of us who cogitate on political and military conflict spend some of our time trying to reduce the various parties to common factors, to suss out some of the causes of the strange alliances we sometimes see and to predict how the forces will align themselves under different circumstances.

I would like to suggest that there have always been two ways of looking at the world and that conflicts between them have attended all human progress. These views have to do, first and foremost, with the distribution of resources.

The minority view, for most of history, has been held by those in favour of the economic distribution of resources. Proponents of this view hold that people should be rewarded according their participation in the economy -- in other words, trade, whether of commodities, labour power, or capital. The forces in this camp for most of history was limited to a few merchants who were not tied to the dominant regime, occasionally gentlemen farmers, such as during the American Revolution, independent tradesmen, bankers, a very few intellectuals, and so on. They were greatly assisted by the Protestant Reformation which argued that the covenant was between man and god without the intervention of the state, and that a man had a right to the rewards he had earned from Providence. Their forces have almost always been unfocused and usually reluctant to take time off from commerce to engage in politics--except where it was made worthwhile, such as when they had a chance to participate in plunder. Lets call them the Traders.

The Traders' main contribution to human development has been the formation of the capital that has produced the modern standard of living and its potential for much further improvement. Secondarily, they have from time to time influenced political life enough to promote the rule of law and limit the state's interference in the private lives of its citizens. About four hundred years ago in some jurisdictions, assisted by the spread of Calvinism, they were able to limit the seizure of their capital by certain European states. As a result these states greatly prospered and began to dominate the old regimes. As the Traders' share of the world's capital has increased so has their influence.

The other great view of the world is that of the Politicians. They favour the political distribution of resources, or rule by status. For most of mankind, from the time of the first chiefdoms, humans rich and poor have had to pay a share of their income and capital, and often, their lives, to the Politicians. Among those who have consistantly favoured the political distribution of resources have been warlords, chieftans, aristocrats, socialists of all stripes (one or two), aristocrats of the labour movements, professional soldiers in statist countries, and (for subtle reasons) most non-scientific intellectuals since the time of the French Revolution (the destruction of the classical education by L'Ecole Polytechnique).

Politicians tend to espouse whatever form of government leads to a stronger state: at different times they will be socialists, nationalists, monarchists, theocrats, mercantilists, or feudalists (I hope I haven't offended anyone by ommission).

Progressives and Reactionaries

I would like to further suggest that human progress is capital formation and can be measured. Capital increases productivity and the demand for human labour power. In fact, capital is demand for labour. Where there is no capital there is no labour save for sustenance, and human (and animal) life has virtually no value other than for immediate consumption (animals will be killed for food, humans will be worked to death). Reactionaries consider capital the enemy of progress and instinctively ally themselves against those policies which make it easier for people to engage in profitable trade. They will tolerate trade, however, where the Traders, as they have been for most of history, are willing to pay a significant percentage of their gain to their political protectors, whether, chief, state, monarch, lord, or bureaucrat.

It is a wonderful thing that in the face of Political dominance since the dawn of civilization ordinary people have still been able to assemble the capital that is the font and measure of human progress.

Thus we have natural alliances between Western intellectuals (in the arts and humanities), social-democratic politicians among the US allies, various dictators, big and small, communists, fascists (to make a fine distinction), environmentalists, feminists, (in general, single-issue groups are strong supporters of a powerful state because that is the only way the achieve their narrow ends, ie, the resources they want but on which they have no rightful claim). All these groups are opposed to one thing above all others: the weakening of the central state. They even support states, such as Cuba, that would never grant them their desires. Because their only hope of success is forming political alliances with dictators, the worst of them prefer dictators of any kind to democrats who support free trade.

Social Democratic regimes, such as those of Clinton-Gore and Tony Blair, are more subtle than most. They think that they can pull off the late medieval tactic of freeing trade to strengthen the state. This is also the tactic in post Mao China. Such tactics might work for the short term, but they end up putting too much capital in the hands of the Traders and thus undermining their own influence over policy. As a result of these tactics the ranks and power of the Traders around the world have grown to the point where they are at last on the verge of being able to effect a permanent change in policy among the most important countries in the world.

Policy Considerations

To achieve greater progress Traders must promote policies which favour further capital formation everywhere. This means attempting to weaken the regimes of the Politicians by resisting their aggression and encouraging opposition. In closed states such as China, Cuba, N. Korea, and so on, where organized opposition is not allowed, Traders should encourage the formation of independent merchants, and where possible a democratic opposition to help guide individual decisions, perhaps in exile.

At home Traders must do all they can to encourage the lowering of taxes and tariffs. Trade freedom within and between the more open societies should be further encouraged. Trader intellectuals should legitimate profit and wealth as social goods (capital formation). The WTO and other international organizations should continue to undermine the power of individual states to limit the economic freedoms of their citizens.

The right to private property should be a flag proudly flown for the peasants, workers, and merchants of all the world to see. Forty years ago, the right to private property was an intrinsic part of the American, no, the western, dream. A few Politician-intellectuals should never have been allowed to shame the rest of us into hiding it under a bushel basket.

Summary

Because of the change in the balance of forces between the Traders and the Politicians, particularly in the last two decades, the world is on the verge of a permanent peaceful prosperity in which economic progress will eclipse the most optimistic projections.

I would like to suggest that all that is needed is for the Traders everywhere to understand their common interests, educate the other participants in the world economy, and coordinate their political efforts.

Comments or criticisms welcome.

--Bob

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".