The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: History Page 1 of 4

How To Lose Allies and Create Enemies

In 1936 Dale Carnegie published his seminal self-help work, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” As a book dedicated purely to interpersonal relations I read it in my late-teens early-twenties and took a few damn good lessons away from it. But, I’m not writing today to discuss Dale Carnegie. I’m here to write the first chapter of a book entitled, “How to Lose Allies and Create Enemies.”

The American way of war and diplomacy (the two are inseparable, remember your Clausewitz) has grown too open-ended. We excel at the operational art of war and tactics, more often than not winning battle after battle. Yet, like Hannibal at the gates of Rome in the aftermath of Cannae we have forgotten how to turn tactical and operational victory into strategic peace. Part of this is we have, either consciously or unconsciously, forgotten question five of the Powell Doctrine: is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless engagement. This question represents to me the supreme invocation and obligation of every great statesman: prudence. Or restraint, if you prefer.

We also have fetishized, military, and military technology. Our armed forces call it total spectrum dominance. (If the technological advances made in the Russo-Ukrainian War are not giving our generals and intellectual colonels indigestion we are well and truly fucked.) This reliance on Big Data during wartime has made American generals dangerously indecisive while the sip coffee and wait for the accrual of more and more data. But, as U.S. Grant said, “in war anything is better than indecision. We must decide.” It has also made us forget the absolute supreme importance of strategy. Now, in warfare there are tactics, operations and strategy. But my focus here is more on the outright diplomatic arrogant dismissal of grand strategy since 1992. I ask each and every one of you who cares about the subject: have you heard any discussion anywhere in the last 30 years about what kind of grand strategy we should have?

No, you have not, which is criminal because American grand strategy has been the same, and should have remained so during the so-called Uni-polar Moment, for more than a century.

Since the days of the Great White Fleet 120 years ago the United States has had a simple grand strategy, one easily understood by a high school educated American citizen: no one power or coalition of hostile powers can dominate the Eurasian landmass. If that were to occur they would have the resources to invade the Western Hemisphere with ease. Full Stop.

Today Americans are so globally and geographically ignorant, enamored with their gadgets and so overcome with financial difficulties–all features not bug bequeathed by our ruling class–that this simple idea is now difficult to understand by the average Josephine.

How did we get here?

Two easy answers: first, thirty years of post-cold war dominance of global decision making. Decision making that made no consideration for consequences became the norm. Ignorance of future potential peer competitors become the norm. By this time the Neo-con influence of total dominance became the norm. These three norms led to serious incuriosity in our diplomatic and security apparatus, creating only careerists rising up the ladder. A true danger to national well being.

Second, and most importantly, we forgot the most important Iron Law of Westphalian international relations: great powers have no permanent friends (or enemies) only interests. After thirty years of attempting dominance and willfully or otherwise ignoring the Iron Law our power diminished and is now in visible decline. The consequences of this wearing before our very eyes is like a massive pile up on the opposite lane of interstate, yet our policy makers drive by the looming catastrophe (not even rubber-necking) laboring under the delusion that all is well and our unipolar world is robust and healthy. It most certainly is not.

With Xi Jing Ping’s announcement that it was time to bury the global rules based order, multi-polarity was born. The siege has begun. NATO is dead. Although the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is not yet the organizational security block opposing NATO it soon will be. Not in two years, but maybe five, certainly ten.

Let’s explore the SCO a bit.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization was founded in June 2001 as a security organization to combat terrorism in Central and East Asia two full months before 9/11. Originally founded by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan it now includes as full members the following: India, Pakistan, Iran and Belarus are now full members as well. Official observers are too many to list. See this link for details.

This week, under the auspices of the SCO, China, Mongolia and Russia, finally clinched the Siberian gas field pipeline deal. This is now the largest energy project on the entire planet. We have driven our adversaries into the arms of each other by our stupidity. Let me repeat that: our blistering arrogance first drove Russia into the arms of China by uparming the Ukraine. Now Trumps idiocy in levying secondary sanctions on the purchase of Russian oil has driven India into the arms of China and Russia. Ukraine was and is a corrupt failing state that we engineered a coup against a democratically elected pro-Russian president to install a comedian. All Russia asked for was Ukrainian neutrality but with every hi-tech NATO weapon in existence at his disposal the little comedian began his drama, thus precipitating a war that ultimately drove Russia into the arms of China. Even worse it ratcheted up an ongoing demonization campaign against China as an enemy because we just don’t know how to live in peace with anyone.

For now the SCO is still a security organization but it is branching out. Its first step is to become the Chinese engine of Eurasian economic integration. So to was NATO the European engine of integration in the beginning under the Marshall Plan. But China’s ambitions outstrip those of Truman’s era. The true driving force behind Eurasian integration is China’s Belt and Road project. This project which seeks to reintegrate all of Eurasia into a single Chinese dominated ecumene, barring Western Europe, is the single greatest threat to American sovereignty that we have ever faced. I do not overstate my case here. This is an enormous long-term threat we have no answer to as yet. I doubt we ever will which is why I have developed a mid-term peace plan that would prevent war with China. I’ll post it in the near future.

Regardless, I’m a sucker for Silk Road romanticism. I have traveled the length, width and breadth of the entire Silk Road: from China to Iran to Istanbul and finally Venice. But if the lands from Istanbul to China are integrated economically by Chinese power and infrastructure America—so long as we carry on with our now customary arrogance is mortal danger. In a word: fucked.

An example of the kind of fuckery we can soon anticipate—a danger I saw coming in 2015 when I noticed the ATMs in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan no longer offered American Dollars but Chinese Renminbi—is the singular most important and major project discussed at the SCO Summit: creation of an alternative payment system to the Swift banking architecture of the west that emerged in the later years as an offshoot to the the Brenton Woods Agreement after World War II.

You know you want even more fuckery. So here it is: Xi has secured an agreement from all the members of the SCO to create an SCO Development Bank, which will rival the IMF and World Bank in the West. He’s been trying to secure this for a decade. Trump delivered it to him in a week of tomfoolery and double-speak on social media.

Need more? No problem. Another item up for discussion between several of the SCO countries was the Arctic: investments in the Arctic; how to exploit the Arctic; how to dominate the Arctic. Note: no Americans were at the SCO as observers, not even as a member of the Arctic Council. Think about that for just a moment. Our diplomats are completely ignorant of discussions that our allies, like the South Koreans are engaging in with the SCO. Is this diplomatic insanity, malfeasance, malpractice, or just outright stupidity? I report, you decide.

Another edifying aside of mass fuckery: at the beginning of Trump‘s second term Indian Prime Minister Modi visited Trump, and there was a palpable sense of excitement about Indian and American relations going forward. There is very real potential for joint naval and space operations between the two nations. Moreover, India could be the third pole we need to contain China. Thus, it was clear from Trump‘s first term that Modi and Trump had a good relationship. Of course, this says much, much more about Modi and Indian desires than it does Trump perspicacity (he probably doesn’t even know what that word means by the way). Nonetheless Trump outright betrayed Modi when he agreed to the EU and NATO levying secondary sanctions against China and India for importing Russian oil. This should come as no surprise. After all, Trump’s raison de vivre is winning the daily 24 hour news cycle first and foremost. Why not fuck Modi in the process of domestic glory? Thus he pushed a potential ally and leader of the largest population on earth into the arms of the SCO. And made him a star at the BRICS summit where he could ham it up with Putin and Xi.

Meanwhile, what about the Second Law of Westphalian politics? You know, the law of Unintended Consequences? Well here’s a whopper for you: the agreement of the Siberian 2 pipeline between Russia, China, and Mongolia will take all of the natural gas that has been sent to Europe for the last 50 years and will now send it to China and other places for the next 30. Europe is now paying four times what it used to for liquid natural gas that is being imported from the United States. It is looking at an extremely cold winter without enough energy and that is going to drive inflation. I am due to have a conversation with a friend that lives in Denmark tomorrow and I’m going to ask him about energy prices. The chaos of rising energy prices is devastating European industry. In the last year alone Germany has lost 196,000 businesses. I repeat 196,000 businesses in Germany closed in one year. That’s devastating to any economy, but Germany long the economic engine of Europe and the EU is deindustrializing for one simple reason: the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, which has been an absolute catastrophe for Europe. The United States is responsible for it.

As Kissinger said about being America’s friend, “The word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”

The reason we don’t know how to live in peace with anyone anymore is that after the end of the Cold War, we reigned triumphant for 35 years and could do damn well whatever we want it all over the world and nobody could oppose us. Well after 35 years it becomes a habit and habits are hard to break, especially mental ones and that’s why our ruling elites are so delusional in their thinking about international affairs. We are now creating the very monster that can actually threaten our hegemony of the Western Hemisphere. This is the most dangerous possible time in American history when it comes to international relations, and we are being ruled by fools. I fear for the future more than anyone can possibly imagine.

Meanwhile, Putin is probably incredibly surprised at how easy it now appears to fracture NATO and to gain new potential allies in Eastern and Central Europe. We are also looking at the proto-formation of a Chinese-Russian-Indian entente. Consider the immense rewards Putin will gain after starting a small war that threatened not a single American vital interest? One in which Russia simply demanded neutrality from its neighbor. The war’s consequences have propelled Russia into a potential global order shifting alliance. This was not Putin’s original intent nor goal. But because the US, under Biden and now Trump, have scored so many “own goals” this is where we are.

The US now behaves much like Venice before the 1508 when the first Holy Alliance, formed by Pope Julius II, also known as the League of Cambrai came together. It took everyone in the European inter state system to band together to defeat Venice. Of course, Venetian behavior prior to the war against it had been high handed. They raised prices on spices, silk and all the goods they imported from the East at will, bringing penury to the elites of Europe, who were the only ones who could afford such luxury. Europe had had enough. The League included France, the Hapsburg Monarchy, the Papal States and the Spanish Empire. Venice suffered a chastening defeat at the battle of Agnadello in 1509. Before this alliance, no one could defeat the Serene Republic. The League of Cambrai did collapse over personality disputes, but not before they took Venice down two pegs. And this is when Venice began its terminal decline that ended when Napoleon overthrew the republic. But after 1509 world change seriously accelerated: Spain pilfered the New World and Portugal built a spice empire in the East by rounding Africa, conquering parts of India, destroying the Ottoman navy in the Indian Ocean and upon entering the Golden Chersonese, conquered the greatest spice entrepôt in the world, the city of Malacca and its adjoining straits, thereby dominating the spice trade from Indonesia. The arrogant behavior of Venice incited all the developments leading to lost income, increasing debt and decline, just as the US is doing now. Unintended consequences have a way of creating fuckery.

The US, however, unlike Venice, is not just passively letting these nations find common interests, the US under Biden and Trump has actively pushed them together. Secondary sanctions on India were a slap in the face of a natural ally of the United States. We already know what happened: Modi went to Beijing and held hands with Putin and Xi.

Own goal!

But the biggest problem we have, as I see it, is that the US can no longer be considered a ‘rational actor’ in the anarchic Westphalian state system presently in existence. Why? One word: Trump. Trump has three huge crippling defects as a leader. Number one: his biggest donors are hard right conservative Jewish dual citizens (Yeah, I said it. You can only serve one master. Fuck off if you disagree). Donors like Mrs. Adelson and others own Trump’s Israel policy. They drive the policy supporting genocide which is not rational by any stretch of the imagination. Second, Trump is one of those pusillanimous leaders in history who acts on what he hears from the last person he talks to. This is truly, epically bad. Third: TACO. Trump always chickens out. At heart the man is a coward. But as my great-grandfather told me, there is nothing more dangerous than a coward in a corner. We must endure three more years of this.

As the Guatemalans used to say during the years of genocide: la puebla es jodida.

Verdun Then and Now

Thirty-one years ago on my first trip overseas I visited Verdun in France. Specifically to see the battlefield of Verdun, where von Falkenhayn sought to bleed the French white. From 21 February 1916 to 18 December 1916, 9 months, 3 weeks and 6 days the Boche–the term the French used for the Germans–did exactly that. I’d written my senior’s honor thesis in history on Verdun and felt it was right to visit.

Fallen Lion of France at the Verdun Battlefield

I’m not going to go into too much detail. You can read about it in its fullness here. I only want to add a few things. First, this was the first time any general attempted a strategy of attrition. Some of what Grant did during the Wilderness and the siege of Fredricksburg is semi-attritional, but it wasn’t Grant’s spoken intent as it was the explicit aim of the Cheif of the German General Staff Erich von Falkenhayn’s. He knew he could not break through the ring of forts surrounding the Meuse Heights and the medieval city of Verdun. His aim was to take the heights and dig in and then take the strategic defensive, forcing France to regain her honor at any cost. 50 German divisions squared off against 75 French. von Falkenhayn succeeded in forcing France’s hand, certainly. In the end his strategy was a failure and he was dismissed by the Kaiser and replaced by Ludendorff and Hindenburg, who quickly established a military dictatorship over the Second Reich for the remainder of the war. Needless to say that over a million men–French and German–died fighting in the trenches along and up the heights and into the forts Douamont and Vaux trading them back several times.

Fort Douamont on the Meuse Heights

If the Miracle on the Marne was the most important battle of the 20th century–and it was we ought paraphrase Churchill and call it France’s finest hour. That being so makes the Battle of Verdun one the finest last stands in the annals of human endeavor. To a man the good, stolid French poilus stood and died in the mud, the filth, the lice, the decaying bodies and the artillery shells shattering overhead all day long, every day for almost a year.

When I visited in 1994 I walked from the city of Verdun all the way up the heights along the single supply route the French called the “voie sacrée” – the sacred way. It was ten miles there and ten miles back. A long day. I walked through trenches, both forts Douamont and Vaux and at the end of the day I walked, rather solemnly through the hallowed arches of the Ossuary, which holds the bones of over 130,000 unidentified French and German soldiers. There was no entrance fee for anything and I was free to roam just about anywhere I wished, except when I saw signs that declared, “Non! Munitions non explosées!” Unexploded ordnance, still active almost a hundred years after being fired.

Ossuary of Verdun

So this morning I watched a video made by a young French woman of the battlefield and its environs. A lot has changed. There is a new, modern museum, and to walk the grounds and see the museum cost about $20. The young woman does an admirable job of guiding the viewer through the most important parts of what I now guess is a monument park of sorts called Mémorial de Verdun Champ de bataille. She’s tactful, sincere, respectful and cognizant of the sacrifice the men made for her. She honors them in her own way. I was pleased to see their sacrifice is still remembered and revered. (As some of you may recall, I had the good fortune to befriend an American WWI veteran in the 1990s before he passed away. So, WWI is important to me, I carry the memory of one of the last American soldiers to fight in the war and I cherish that memory.) She also pays her respects to the Germans who fell during the battle (part of the site was re-dedicated in the 50’s after the Franco-German rapproachment after WWII). She even visited the graves of our doughboys who fought in the area in 1918.

In all honesty, I can’t say I would have enjoyed walking through the museum. Of course seeing the uniforms and the kit of the poilus was fascinating, but there was a rich, chilling awe of gravitas to my imagination that day as I walked through the empty echoing halls of forts Douamont and Vaux. There were no wax figures as there are now. Only a haunting silence. If I listened closely enough I could almost hear the distant echoes of incoming artillery. The shots of mausers. The cracks of the countering French Berthiers. And the loud pops and booms of French and German grenades.

Sometimes less is more.

Regardless, it was an unforgetable experience.

The Changing Interpretations of Gobekli Tepe

The foreman in 2008 and his sons offer me tea.

Before Gobekli Tepe became an internet sensation due to psuedo-archeologist Graham Hancock, I visited the site in 2008. That was 17 years ago. It was not a tourist site at the time, it was a working archeological dig. I was greeted by the foreman, and I asked if I could take photos. He said yes, and I did. Some of you might recall them. Here is what it looked like then, and here is a link to the photos:

Gobekli Tepe in 2008

Here is how awful it looks now:

Gobekli Tepe at present

That’s a lot of change. The Turkish government co-opted it for its own reasons and turned it into a Kurdish-region mega-tourist attraction in as a way of asserting some control, but also as a way of dishing out some money to keep the Kurds, at the very least, content. Gobekli Tepe has nothing to do with Turkish history. The site dates back to the Younger Dryas, or, the last Ice Age — it probably dates back further than that. The first interpretation was that it turned our idea of civilization on its head. It went like this: “Before Gobekli Tepe man built the city and then the temple. But at Gobekli they believed the temple came first.” I felt it a compelling reason and I’m a touch saddened it has been revised. But that is how empircal data works. This view has now been revised. Here is a shortish video discussing the dating issues. A key point he makes in his video is that there is real specialization in labor. A division in labor. Not a collection of hunter gathers but proto-civilization, if you will. If you really want to do a deep dive on this very important subject I cannot recommend Ancient Architects highly enough. This video and this video are a great place to begin. What ever you do, do not listen to Graham Hancock. He is full of shit. The bottom line is that Gobekli Tepe is only one site now considered a part of the Taş Tepeler civilization in the highlands of southern Anatolia. There are between 40-80 sites in a 250 square mile area in the highlands above the headwaters of the Balikh River and the Harran Plain–Turkey’s gateway to Mesopotamia–and where the Roman general Crassus died at the battle of Carrhae in 53 BC.

The battlefield of Carrhae, where Crassus died, smack in the middle of Turkish Mesopotamia.

That’s simply huge. And that there was lots of trial and error going on there about domesticating all kinds of things. Plus, pottery has been found and dated at one site to the pre-pottery neolithic! I recommend we rename the pretty pottery neolithic to something else, please?

Last thought, Slovenian political scientist Samo Burja has an absolutely compelling essay based on Gobekli Tepe and other archeological sites on how civilization might be very much older than we currently believe. He speculates there is a real possibility that in our lifetimes we might discover attempts at it close to 100,000 years old. Given what I have seen, I would not be surprised if he were very close to correct.

Give some of the videos a watch if your inclined in the speculation on our origins, like I am.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

Does Zohran Mamdani Matter?

So, Democratic Socialist (ie. has politics a 70s liberal would have agreed with, but is less racist) Zohran Mamdani has won the nomination as the Democratic candidate for New York City Mayor.

The best analysis I’ve read of this is definitely from Matt Stoller. He says this win helps define this as a “system-defining election,” that is, an attempt to not just to change who runs a system, but how that system is run. Read the article.

I’ll point out here that there have been a few such attempts. Stoller writes about Lamont’s challenge to Lieberman, in which Lamont won the primary, then Lieberman won the election. It’s similar to what will be tried here: The oligarchical part of the Democratic party will align behind another candidate, possibly even the Republican one. Those who don’t will try to co-opt Mamdani, and turn him into a centrist left-winger.

Mamdani is more radical than Sanders; he isn’t a Zionist, for example. But he’s basically suggesting policies than no Democrat during the 50s, 60s, and even into the 70s would have found extraordinary.

What Stoller calls system-defining elections, I call sub-ideological revolutions. FDR changed the form of capitalism practiced in the US, so did Carter and Reagan. Mamdani, for all the screams from rich operatives like Larry Summers and various oligarchs, isn’t a radical — any more than FDR was. He doesn’t want to switch to economic Communism (i.e., worker ownership of the means of production or Soviet-style central control), say, or a single-party state. He wants real changes in how capitalism is practiced, and some changes to who has power in Democracy.

Sanders’ runs in 2016 and 2020 were an attempt at a sub-ideological revolution, or, system-defining elections. This is why Obama intervened and lined everyone up behind Biden, a nearly unprecedented step.

Likewise, Corbyn represented such an attempt, except Corybn got further, winning the Labour leadership. It’s not an accident that (and we have receipts, so don’t argue) Labour operatives actually sabotaged him in two elections to ensure a Conservative win. They wanted the old ideology/system to keep running more than they wanted their party to win. And once Corbyn was removed, his successor, Starmer, purged the party of the democratic socialist left. Once in power, Starmer doubled down on austerity and politics no different in substance, but actually more punitive, than those followed by the Conservative party.

The Reform Party in the UK is now coming on hard.

Be clear that sub-ideological transitions/system changes can be bad. Neoliberalism was a bad change. In the UK, if Reform sets the new system/ideological norm, it will be awful.

This is one reason why I said that Corbyn was the UK’s last chance: If the left failed, the right would then get its shot, and what the right wants to do is beyond awful.

It’s why Germany is beyond hosed: Doubling down on military Keynesianism (which won’t work in a corrupt, neoliberal system), while cutting social welfare will simply lead to the new-right getting into power. Their policies will make most people worse off, not better.

As for Mamdani, he’s a good sign. The fact that men, as well as the youngs, went for him is also excellent, because it shows that men and youngsters aren’t really “right-wing” in any way that matters. Yet. What they want is change. If they are offered good change, they’ll take it. However, they’re so desperate that if all that’s on the menu is shitty change, or the status quo, they’ll take shitty change.

This was obviously going to happen. I wrote years ago that we wouldn’t see real change until the mid-2020s, at the earliest, because it required generational change as well.

Mamdani tells us that what sort of change will finally win in the US is not yet decided. It doesn’t have to be MAGA stupidity and meanness.

So if you want something better in the US, if you want a chance at a New New Deal, get behind Mamdani and people like him — hard.

There still remains a question of whether Mamdani can deliver, even if he is elected. Will he be be co-opted? Will he run into opposition from enemies so powerful he either can’t overcome them? Or will he use them as a rallying call? Is he competent enough to create and run a new system like the one he’s suggesting?

This is a chance because, if Mamdani wins and then improves New Yorker’s lives, he’ll be copied. And if you’re in a position to do something to improve the chance of this happening and then working, I suggest you do so.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of my articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. I’ve written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

Losing Our Asian Allies – And Fast

Ian in his last post mentioned that our Asian allies are slipping away from us. While we pretend to strategically re-orient the Japanese are engaging in massive rearmament begun by Abe and being continued by the current government. Japan has lost confidence in the American security umbrella because of the deceit we’ve displayed in foreign relations. The Koreans? I lived in Korea. They’re simply apoplectic. Some are even at the point where they are willing to consider a loose confederation with the north, an entente of sorts so the South has the protection of the North’s nuclear umbrella and the North gains goods and services from the South.

This is simply unheard of. When I talked to one of my former students who now works in the foreign ministry and he told me this I was gobsmacked.

Ian’s correct. For 400 years the balance of payments from the rest of the world went to the Littoral seapower states. For the last 50 years the balance of payments has been reversed.  All that gold is going back home. In one generation the United States has squandered all the goodwill and wealth it received during WWI and WWII. China in the last 50 years has lifted more people out of poverty than the rest of the world did during all of recorded history. Chew on that stat for a moment.

I will be visiting China and South Korea to do a 20 year retrospective tour and a 30 year retrospective tour on the former and the latter. I don’t know what to expect, but I remember China 20 years ago and being blown away.

The USA is in deep strategic shit. For 200+ years our power has been based on our complete hegemony of this hemisphere. For 75 of the last 100 years our main strategic goal has been the prevention of one power or an alliance of powers attaining hegemonic power over the Eurasian landmass. In the last six years we’ve abandoned that VITAL national interest for what? We’ve driven Russia into the arms of China. India lost all confidence in us. Now East Asia has.

If a single power or coalition of powers dominate the Eurasian landmass our two oceans will not protect us.

It appears I might have been wrong about the Israeli-Iran pissing contest being the opening act of WWIII. Good. What it really feels like is the first Balkan War in 1912. The calculus is being made in Beijing. And Tokyo. And Seoul. And Taipei. We lack the ability to protect our allies conventionally. And no one wants nukes.

I don’t have any smart quip to conclude with except a Spanish expletive, “la puebla es jodida.”

You get the idea.

Fiscal Failure & The French Revolution

(Post by Bruce Wilder, Elevated from the Comments)

The French Revolution is in many ways, it is the prime historical example of state failure related to fiscal failure (the inability to tax the rich in particular) leading to revolution (and post-revolution, to the unleashing of state capacity in Napoleonic empire building)

Ancien Régime France at the end of the 18th century had an underdeveloped financial sector, was overpopulated relative to its agricultural productivity, had lost a big chunk of its colonial empire and despite the theoretical advantages of its 17th century legacy of centralizing absolutism, was a litigious society of particularism, privilege, and resentment.

The crisis when it came found many fissures in the fiscal firmament of the state. The privileged often enjoyed exemptions from certain taxes, sometimes purchased with office by some ancestor. The collection of certain taxes was in private hands. At the time of the revolution, an extensive wall around Paris was being built by a consortium of private “tax farmers” expecting to grow rich on their role in colltecting such taxes. So, it wasn’t just that the rich and powerful avoided paying taxes, key figures were also skimming from the tax revenue collected.

The expedients of a fiat money and a central bank had been tainted fatally by John Law and the Mississippi Bubble. The Paris financial sector was entirely in the hands of Swiss and Dutch bankers and speculators. One of these, Necker, followed in the tradition of Colbert, and was quite popular in part because he created a system of State pawn shops, which relieved some of the inconvenience.

The political parallels and contrasts with the UK were stark. The UK had had its own South Sea Bubble at the same time as the Mississippi Bubble, but in the UK, the South Seas Company was folded into the Bank of England and the national debt was serviced ever after at a “risk-free” rate, a floor for other rates. The French Treasury paid rates to the Dutch and Swiss bankers that reflected the increasing risk of default. State finances in France were obscure. Necker would publish the first accounts in what historians now regard as a propaganda exercise. Once the French state was borrowing to meet its obligations to repay earlier loans, it almost didn’t matter how tax revenues were trending, because the debt began to compound and the servicing cost was escalating.

The UK had used its fiscal capacity and central bank to outspend France in a series of wars beginning at the end of the 17th century. There had been a pause, but the rivalry had resumed, culminating in the Seven Years’ War, with Britain subsidizing its continental ally, Prussia.

The inability of the UK to tax their 13 American colonies to finance the war debt caused the American Revolution before the French Revolution. And the example taught the French.

The UK had experienced an agricultural revolution of sorts in the late 17th and early 18th century as Adam Smith’s “improving landlords” began very fine calculations on the advantages of Jethro Tull’s inventions, turnips and forage in crop rotation and the profit from further enclosing the commons, a process underway since the Tudors. The gains in land and labor productivity were small but significant and fed a growing urban population. The population of England nearly doubled in the course of the 18th century.

France was not so fortunate. French agriculture was notoriously backward and resisted the promotional efforts of royal reformers and intendants. Feudal dues were collected in large areas by the church or impoverished nobles with no power to manage or improve the properties.

The nascent “business cycle” of 18th century France was an agrarian cycle of boom and famine: a good harvest could feed an expansion of mercantile and artisanal sectors. A famine would drive France into a business depression. The Physiocrats observed the pattern and made a theory out of it. And, from the Physiocrats came the liberalism of Turgot.

The same Dutch and Swiss bankers took liberalism and fashioned an argument for a laissez faire response to famine: let the price of grain be what the market will bear. Very appealing argument to grain speculators financed by Dutch and Swiss bankers.

Failing to control the price of bread or the distribution of grain stores had a profound effect on the course of the Revolution, motivating the common people of Paris to march and riot and so forth even as their betters debated the Rights of Man.

The Loss Of American Leadership Competence Viewed From WWII

This is an elevated comment, from Stewart M.

By StewartM

What strikes me is our loss of leadership competency, from the extremely competent people who managed us through the depression and through WWII to the clowns of today.

I’ve been involved in Youtube exchanges where some idiot creates a video claiming how we “saved” the USSR in WWII via Lend-Lease. First, that is that factually untrue. The USSR saved itself; Lend-Lease was such a trickle in 1941-1942 that it had essentially NO effect on the Battle of Moscow in December 1941, and very little impact on the Battle of Stalingrad in the fall-winter of 1942. Stalingrad at the very least marks the point where “the USSR will survive and not lose” so Lend-Lease didn’t “save” the USSR. Lend-Lease did help the USSR, but the bulk of it (60 %) came in the last 10 months of WWII well after the USSR had turned the tide and driving back the Wehrmacht out of the USSR. The most important part of Lend-Lease help wasn’t the weapons we sent, nor the locomotives, nor the steel, nor the petrol, nor even the trucks (the most common ‘fact’ brought up). It was the food we sent–in 1942 42 % of the USSR’s arable land was occupied, and the USSR instituted a rationing program where soldiers, workers in essential industries, and children got first priority on food. If you weren’t one of those, you didn’t get much, and hunger contributed mightily to the USSR’s civilian death rate in the war. The FDR administration promised the USSR 10 % of US food production to help, but could only manage to deliver 3 %.

But my point in mentioning Lend-Lease is that such Youtubes miss the main reason why we did what we did in aiding the USSR. It wasn’t some act of friendship or mercy, we weren’t just ‘being nice’; we did it OUT OF ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST. George Marshall and the US military leadership were not sure we could win WWII without Soviet help; at the very least if the USSR went down to defeat and Hitler obtained access to the USSR’s resources it would prolong both the length and sacrifice of the US and UK. The military problem the US faced was war both in Europe and the Pacific, with far-flung bases and long supply lines that “ate” up manpower and required a powerful Navy and Air arm to protect. We thus couldn’t raise an army of hundreds of divisions and supply it overseas, to do the work that the Soviets were providing the West by grinding up the Wehrmacht. Keeping the Soviets in the war was quite vital; ergo Lend-Lease.

In short, Marshall and his ilk had a clear and correct notion of what the US could do, and what it couldn’t do. The manpower restrictions on ground forces meant “no land war in Asia” which meant we wouldn’t field armies in China. Instead, we focused on a ground force manpower-minimizing “island hopping” strategy where we only took relatively few key islands and just left Japanese ground forces in elsewhere stranded and cut-off from supply. The bulk of the ground forces we did raise were going be used to defeat Hitler, whom Marshall correctly identified as the biggest threat to the US, given Germany’s technological skills and industrial base.

This kind of calculation is what we’ve lost. In WWII, we knew we were powerful, in some ways relative to the world more powerful then than now, but we knew we couldn’t do everything and that we shouldn’t even try. But after WWII, inside the US spread the notion (largely spread by conservatives and the anti-communists) that we had really ‘done it all’ and won the war without much of anyone’s help. Why did we cave to Stalin at Yalta? Why didn’t we let Patton drive the Soviets out of Eastern Europe? We had the bomb after all! (cue in Henry Stimson rhetorically patting his coat pocket). WE WERE OMNIPOTENT!

The first generation who acted on this belief, a belief definitely not shared by those who planned and executed WWII, was the “Greatest Generation” who had fought it as common soldiers when they assumed leadership—JFK through Reagan/Bush I. It led to Vietnam and to interventions everywhere, because we could and should impose our will upon the world. It was exacerbated when (as you say) financial means of scoring economies replaced measures of actual industrial capacity and output, from Clinton to today. What gets me is that the US’s leadership is more arrogant and more convinced of its supremacy despite the fact by all objective measures, whatever power the US actually has is far less relative to the rest of the world than the US during WWII during Marshall’s and FDR’s time. Yet Marshall and FDR knew we weren’t omnipotent and couldn’t ‘do it all’. And I fear nothing less than a massive comeuppance will change their attitudes.

(This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.)

Short Take: Why We Have a Second Amendment in the USA

In the two hundred years before the American Civil War there were more than 250 slave revolts involving more than 50 slaves. Most involved between 50-150, but some we much larger.

So, Sean Paul, what does this have to do with the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms?

Everything to do with slavery, and nothing to do with holding our government accountable. Seriously, do you honestly think a couple thousand Texans with AR-15s could out fight an armored brigade? GTFOH.

The Second Amendment was specifically designed so that white slave holders had enough firepower–not pitchforks–to put down any serious slave rebellion. Look what they did to Gabriel Prosser in 1800?  Bet you never heard of him, have ya?

Here is another fun fact: I have one BA, one MS, and an MA for good measure, and no teacher or professor in any of my classes ever discussed slave revolts in the United States. Yes, François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture was lionized. But he was Haitian revolting against the French. I have 20 years of primary, secondary and tertiary education and no one, not even once, ever mentioned a slave revolt in the United States. They talked about how well slaves were treated–which is balderdash–but never mentioned slave revolts. Maybe that’s because I was mostly educated in Texas, a kind of sort of part of the South, but really just home to a bunch of loudmouth assholes and dipshits who think they are better than everyone else in the United States because Texas was its own country for nine years. What’s that joke about bullshit and Texans? Texas begged to be let into the Union every chance it got.

Last but not least, the stench of slavery lingers on in the institution of the Senate in general, which is first and foremost the most undemocratic insitution in the United States, and in particular the filibuster, which to this day is used the vast majority of the time by Southern Senators to derail any real progress in the United States.

So, now you know.

Page 1 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén