Peter Lustig - Incompatibility and other essays

Yes, it is true: this sort of oppressive pursuance of collective action was best put into practice by totalitarian regimes. But certainly not to the same purpose; even though it is obvious that organizing society in accordance with specific goals requires similar procedure, as long as it can be shown to have worked before. Crying ‘Fascist’ at advocates of of law and order holds little water whilst it comes from sources reluctant to rule out violence in politics. Maybe it is only a matter of getting one’s priorities right, even bearing in mind the breadth of the ideological debate. Here, there is room for more and greater irreconcilable differences.

The previous chapter was concerned with the spread of Islamic extremism. Islam is described as obscurantist and medieval; because it appeals to the fears and appetites of populations that exist on the margins of strife torn, intrinsically failed, states, either because they are plagued by civil war or by high-handed authoritarianism (which might well be the other side of the same coin). It so happens that the alleged backwardness of Islam is blamed on its longing for an idealized past, when the Prophet walked among ordinary folk. Moving back in time is like retrograding; but still the idea is to vindicate the underprivileged and lay the world before them as a prize that must be won by engaging in the good fight; viz. the holy war.

Social progress is associated with Marxism for the opposite reasons; although it also addresses the neglected sector of the population, in Western democracies. Marxism was contrived with an eye on the future; in that sense it is at loggerheads with back-treading religiousness. Marx himself produced the most astounding review of the reasons why most of humanity – the working class was made up of those who would previously have been serfs, under feudalism, plus members of some of the better organized craftsmen guilds – had been left out in the cold, when the industrial revolution got under way. There could never have been an industrial revolution without the workers. Why would the workers have only a small part in its benefits? The proposal that they were being robbed by their exploiters fell upon fertile ground, so that the workers were quick to believe that ownership of the means of production should revert onto them, under the tutelage of the state. It would be easy to bring this about by extending the suffrage, as happened until the suffrage became universal (in the XX century), as it has been now for some time. It was equally easy for Marx to persuade the have-nots that they were the rightful owners, who were being deprived of what should have been theirs all along, so that the principle of ownership was itself exposed as the evidence of wrong-doing. From then on, Marxism became the new religion of the working class. Property would be taken over by the state and put to work for the benefit of the workers, who would have the run of the state apparatus, since they held the majority vote.

Marx was able to persuade public opinion with considerable ease, at a time when nobody else had gone to the trouble of analyzing the social conditions created by the industrial revolution with similar thoroughness. This made it possible for someone who was otherwise only a scruffy, bearded Jew (for which he was cut out to become the butt of discrimination, anyhow), sitting in isolation on his fat backside, to contrive theory where nobody was in the least aware of him as a thinking man, let alone a revolutionary. Marx wrote in German, in the library of the British Museum, having sought refuge in Britain to save his skin, after he had been chased out of Germany and France. As a spokesman for the workers, he received well deserved praise. For representing society as a battleground in which none but the fittest would survive -a notion probably adapted from Darwin, or Lamarck, in terms that only Marx himself could understand-, Marx was responsible for stimulating conflict where a problem needed to be solved. (The topic of workers sharing in corporate profits is still the subject of sharp bickering today.) In that sense, he could pass for the most vicious wretch who ever trod the earth, bearing in mind how XX century history turned out, with Marxism gobbling up all the more moderate forms of worker participation and Stalin lording it over his enemies, in the wake of the belatedly revived patriotism of the Russian people, despite the abuse they had suffered under the totalitarian police state that he had introduced. Stranger still was that Communism should have won the day over Nazism and Fascism with the aid of its most relentless enemy, Capitalism, showing that XIX century Nationalism, according to which the people of any one country stood to attain mastery over the rest of the world (Imperialism), had seen its day go by; while the class system, under pressure to reform or be abandoned, had made way for the emergence of Socialism, worldwide. The defeat of Nationalism and the advent of Socialism mark the historical turning point of the period conclusively, a fact from which no poltical system can escape. This applies particularly to Third World countries that remained uninvolved during World War II, so that they were never able to learn any useful lessons from its outcome.

In some ways, both Islam and Communism seem to be moving in the same direction, which may well be why some of the more violent forms of Third World populism appear to engage automatically with the Muslim anti-Western militancy. One practical reason for this may be their concerted opposition to the Anglo-Saxon economic power scheme. Another probably stems from deliberate interference by Russia, in its attempt to hold its own by backing the enemies of its enemies. Whatever the details, the world has been split into two camps, either for or against joining up with the West, viz. the U.S. and its allies. Those who stand against harp on a nationalistic rhetoric linked to populism and regional integration, to challenge the larger economy’s predicament upon market structure. One might say they take an unrealistic view of economic prospects, based on demographic statistics, rather than investment potential. This is what makes progress seem redoubtable and the proponents of this policy, incompetent, especially because results are not confirmed by figures.

Even then, some significant changes are visible, thanks to ostensible stimuli to consumer demand and the rate of employment (as far as returns permit to sustain it against inflation). The man in the street is in a poor position to evaluate the negative effect of inflation, when it is used as a steady activating mechanism. He may never realize that inflation makes saving impossible; because he may never have had any surplus income to save. But when wages fall behind cost of living, the facts will catch up with the voter who has developed the habit of coasting along with the gradual loss of purchasing power of the money in his pocket, or the long-term prospect of increasing dependence on government sponsored subsidies and transfers, as investment capital seeks refuge elsewhere.

The voter who lives from hand to mouth, as is the case wherever populism represents the majority, could not care less about the losses of those whose income exceeds their basic needs. In keeping with the now thoroughly established Marxist argument against capitalist exploitation, while there is any surplus income that can be taken over by the State (through taxation, inflation, confiscation, etc.), he will not be any the worse off, while there is a politician out there who wants his vote.

From the standpoint of someone who does not go along with this rapacious way of thinking, populism looks like an excuse for a bloodless revolution, bent on squeezing dry those who have something to lose. To say the least, the loser will not be able to avoid calling this plain daylight robbery. How could he be prevented from taking defensive action, before it was too late? Is there any way such incompatibility as arises between himself and the political system can be overcome, or even neutralized? All that can be seen is that playing to the rules consists of holding on as tightly as possible, until the next election when, hopefully, things may change.