Oliver Stone on American Pay TV Channel Showtime

Oliver Stone is a very accomplished filmmaker, so it makes sense for a pay channel to jump at the chance to make a series with him.  Unfortunately, Showtime has elected to make a documentary series, Secret History of America, a companion piece to his book, in which Stone expounds at length on his particular views regarding post-war American history.  There are conflicting opinions regarding particular points Stone makes, but less on who Stone is and what he has stood for.

Stone has a radical, profoundly illiberal perspective.  His is not the sort of mainstream left wing view, arguing in favor of a more active role for the state in the context of a liberal political system and a market oriented economy.  Rather he consistently throws his lot in with radical revolutionaries and propagandizes for totalitarian, absolutist, left extremism.  For example, he has made two sympathetic documentaries on Fidel Castro, Looking for Fidel and Commandante, helping perpetuate the myth that the tyrant is a sympathetic humanist persevering against “Imperialism”.  (Full disclosure – I’ve not yet seen these; I’ve read about them and intend to catch up with them at some point).  

He has worked with Marxist agitator Tariq Ali on his most recent documentary before Untold History, South of the Border.  By most accounts, South of the Border paints an almost uniformly positive picture of Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela.  Some have reservations.   For example, one group which recently sent a mission to investigate the state of the Bolivarian republic noted that “As expressed in a manual for workers’ education published by an official trade union, “violence is the means for the implementation of modern societies (according to Marx)”. Violence, threats, intimidation, insecurity, uncertainty and instability of laws and procedures constitute the current framework of society. This has consequences not only for the private lives of the people and for civil and political life, but equally for national economic activity.”  Who are these skeptical reactionaries?  The Socialist International.  You can read the rest of their report here:

http://www.socialistinternational.org/images/dynamicImages/File/SI_Mission_to_Venezuela_Report.pdf

At other times, Stone has apologized for and equivocated regarding Colombia’s notorious FARC (Revolutionary armed forces of Colombia) Marxist Revolutionaries.  “They're a peasant army; I see them as a Zapata-like army. I think they are heroic to fight for what they believe in and die for it, as was Castro in the hills of Cuba."”

It seems nearly anyone who advocates illiberal economics, anti-Americanism and violence has a better than fair chance at earning Stone’s esteem.

 The book and TV program comes at a time when more liberal ideas, especially regarding trade, sound currency, the rule of law and property rights, are at a low and apparently receding ebb globally.  In addition, a generation with no living memory of the cold war, the Soviet Union and the horrors of Communism has come of age.  One thing few would dispute with Stone, is that 20^th century history is often poorly taught and little known.  It makes it all the more unfortunate that many will likely learn much of what they think they know from this series.

Progressivism

Progressivism is based on contempt for humanity and concomitant disregard for liberty.  In addition, most progressives have no interest in addressing poverty.  The animating principal of progressivism is that the lives of individuals can be improved through continuously increasing levels of cooperation in all aspects of society, including the economy, coordinated through an ever-expanding state.  In this way, opportunities can be extended to those for whom they would not otherwise be available, and they will be protected from the vicissitudes of chance.

The ever-expanding state is of necessity a threat to individual freedom, and must constrain the operation of market mechanisms by reducing the personal autonomy on which such mechanisms depend.  After all, the state doesn’t expand into a vacuum.  If one believes that individual liberty has value in and of itself and that markets are indispensible to allocating assets efficiently and creating wealth, progressivism is inherently problematic.  Yet, it is reasonable to debate a tradeoff between individualism and societal goals, and between growth and other objective.  However, such debates assume Progressives are acting in good faith, and this is generally not the case. 

More realistically, progressives view the effects of their policies as a means of perpetuating their control.  If those who are dependent, who are at the margins of society, the desperate or nearly so are the most likely to support progressives, progressives will implement policies to ensure this constituency is entrenched and expanded.  As the implementation of progressive policy leads the population to become more dependant on the state for survival and cuts off any alternatives, the power of progressive politicians grows.  Progressives’ power doesn’t grow despite the degraded conditions of their constituents, but rather because of.  They create circumstances in which there is no viable alternative to the degraded status quo.

This dynamic is in evidence wherever progressive policies have been consistently applied, not only in the United States.  For example, lit is largely responsible for Argentina’s century long transition from first to third world.  In the United States, it can be seen to be playing out in California, and has brought down Detroit.  

The 16^th house district in NY is a good example.  It covers most of the South Bronx, and it is the poorest house district in the country.  Although its has improved from it’s absolute nadir, it’s still a pretty desperate place, with nearly 40% at or below poverty line.   In the 1950s, this was a vibrant neighborhood, largely of recent immigrants.  Numerous factors contributed to the precipitous decline since the 1950’s, but a constant has been consistent progressivism.  Rent control contributed to the deterioration of the housing stock.  Their House representation has been among the most progressive in Congress.  It’s been Democrats since 1949, and the history includes progressive icons Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Elizabeth Holtzman, Charles Shchumer and Charlie Rangel.  Today, Jose E. Serrano represents the district.   According to his Wikki page, here’s what Schumer had to say about pork sent to his district: “And let me say this to all the chattering classes that so much focus on those little, tiny, yes porky amendments. The American people really don’t care.”  Serreno said, “I make no excuses about the fact that I earmark dollars to go in the poorest congressional district in the nation” when asked about a piece of pork he sponsored. 

Progressive politicians are as likely to serve the long-term interests of their voters as a drug dealer is to serve the genuine interests of their customers.  They have no interest in their independence.  There could be some, such as Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who genuinely believe in the paternalistic relationship between people and their government which progressivism represents.  However, for most progressives, politics is a racket and  Progressive politics serves the interests of the politicians responsible for them. 

The current Presidential administration saw 75 people to the Federal food stamps program for every job created in its first term. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/food-stamp-growth-75x-greater-job-creation_660073.html).  Serrano’s district, the poorest in the US, gave the President greatest margin of victory of any House district in 2008 at 95 – 5%.  No doubt, the margin is similar this time around.  Progressivism causes poverty because poverty is the basis of progressive power.

Quick update on Sihonouk's Death

I wanted to add a quick note I didn't get to on the last Pol-Pot related post; it seemed appropriate on the occasion of Sihonouk's death.  Why has the been so little reconciliation with the past in Cambodia?  Nothing like Germany's (or at least West Germany's) confrontation of it's recent history, or any sort of truth and reconciliation commission.  One reason could be that nobody with power has any incentive.  Few involved in this period come off well, and few currently close to power would have their reputations enhanced by an examination of their roles.  Hun Sen was a former Khmer Rouge who outmaneuvered his former mentor.  Those who benefited from the Vietnamese invasion have no interest in drawing attention to the fact, and of course Sihounouk himself had a close, if complicated relationship the the Khmer Rouge.  I expect that after a generation or so of peace, if Cambodia becomes a more stable and prosperous place in a generation or two, there might be a re-emergence of interest in this part of its history.  For now, even as it takes on a semi-mythological status for much of the country's young population, for those currently close to power, the Khmer Rouge era is still to close, and the relationship to that period too ambiguous.

Poll Pot – Anatomy of a Nightmare

As long as I’m doing posts on books, I thought I might put up a few thoughts about Pol Pot, Anatomy of a Nightmare, by  Philip Short.  The immediate impetus for putting something up, i(though not for reading the book, )was this gem:

“The Republicans are rewriting history," Hoffa said, according to The Detroit News. "There was no recession. There were no wars. Nothing ever happened during those eight years." 

He continued: "It's like Pol Pot -- basically start (from) the Day One, the new calendars." 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/teamsters-president-likens-republicans-to-pol-pot/#ixzz27dAbgl8N

What’s the matter, are trivializing, inappropriate Hitler references becoming old hat? 

Pol Pot became less obscure than other third world tyrants in part because of the critically popular 80s movie the Killing Fields.  Besides the movie, he deserves to be known for the particular brutality of the regime he headed, which in the four years it was in power is estimated to have been responsible for roughly 750k to 1.5 million deaths, or about twenty percent of Cambodia’s population.  Today, in Cambodia itself, which has a notably young population, he and his murderous history are apparently fading from memory; know or fully believe the history.

The ideological origins of the Khmer Rouge are from the European continental collectivist Marxist utopianism.  However, the author also points to certain particularly Cambodian characteristics, which might have contributed to the nature of the regime.    In fact, because Pol Pot was a relatively indifferent student and found orthodox Marxism difficult to relate to, he posits that these may have had a very significant impact.  Cultural factors include the importance of saving face, which inhibits incremental conflict resolution.  Instead, conflict is avoided until it is unavoidable, at which point there can be an explosion of violence; the inability to bend leading to violent breaks.

There’s also a centuries long bloody history of regional conflict between the Southeast Asian nations.  A significant element of Cambodian identity is there otherness from their neighbors, particularly Thailand and Vietnam, with a particular animosity for the Vietnamese.  Short contrasts the Buddhist tradition in Cambodia to Vietnamese and Chinese Confucianism.   Interestingly, Short attributes some of the brutality of the Khmer Rouge to the Buddhist tradition, which is counterintuitive to Buddhism’s pacific reputation.  Specifically, he cites the rote memorization, strict hierarchy, and the doctrine of abrogation of self. 

The tactical and ideological hyper fluidity of the Khmer Rouge is notable.  In geopolitics, it is not so anomalous.  The US allied with the USSR when it needed to, and lined up with the PRC when it became mutually advantageous, and so on.    However, the ideological shifts fluidity of Pol Pot was striking. The Khmer Rouge arguably orchestrated the most radical implementation of communism in any state (with honorable mentions to DPRK, which took on a more mystical, racist and quasi religious tone, also related to the history and culture of that country).  Starving subjects were executed for attempting to survive from wild growing fruits, since this was more individualism than the regime could accept.  Yet shortly after losing power, Pol Pot abandoned socialism altogether, noting that his none of his actual or potential backers were Communist, and rather presciently noting that, with the defeat of the Ultra Leftists following Mao’s death in China, the PRC would too soon become more capitalist.

How the US came to tacitly back what was one of the most brutal communist regimes was also interesting.  Short points out the parallels between the relationship between China and Vietnam and between Vietnam and Cambodia.  They are historical rivals, with long standing animosity which necessarily makes any alliance tactical, whatever its underlying ideological basis.  When Vietnamese-Cambodian relations completely fell apart and Vietnam invaded Cambodia, it had simultaneously thrown it’s lot in with the USSR in the Sino-Soviet rivalry.  When the US established diplomatic relations with the China, we got tacit support of the Khmer Rouge as part of the deal.  So when we made a display of storming out of the UN for a Khmer Rouge speech in the early 1980’s, the US was still working behind the scenes to keep official UN representation in Khmer Rouge hands as long as possible.

Short doesn’t shy away from the horrors of this history, and provides both sticks and illustrative anecdotes.  They are dealt with unflinchingly but without sensationalism or devolving into prurient interest.

So do I recommend the book?  Though well written, it’s not a quick read.  There are over 400 pages of pretty dense text.  The list of important figures (Dramatis Personae) helps immensely; it’s something I wish more histories included.  If you have a particular interest in the region, in Cambodia, or this aspect of the Cold War, it is probably indispensible. 

Conscience of a Conservative - a couple of thoughts

Goldwater's (ghostwritten, per Wikipedia) Conscience of a Conservative is an important read.  Unlike man books that could be said of, it is also concise, clear and brief.  It essentially served as a manifesto for his '64 campaign against Johnson, and despite the latter success in characterizing Goldwater as a dangerous extremist, the book generally reveals a moderate and well considered view of the role of the state in the US and the US in the world.   

In domestic policy, he makes the case for a market economy, and warns against both direct state control and against crony capitalism, or subsidies for private businesses.  He saw a role for unions in the private sector as a necessary counterweight to concentrated corporate power, especially in one industry towns, as often happens, for example with coal mines, but was opposed to public sector unions, correctly seeing them as effectively organizing with politicians against the public.  He opposed both corporate and union contributions to political campaigns.  Though clearly religious and believing the policy should be inspired by faith, he was already critical of the conflation of church and state, a stance which would subsequently become more prominent as evangelicals made inroads into the GOP in coming years.  In foreign policy, Goldwater, not surprisingly advocated a muscular approach.    However, he appears to have either been unaware of or to have not believed in the Sino-Soviet split.  He, like many conservatives, considered the entire communist bloc to operate as a single, entity, which, as for a long time it mostly had.  It would have been pretty far seeing to determine otherwise in 1964, and publicly Chinese and Soviet communists concealed their differences, but within five years there would be border skirmishes between the two.  In less than a decade, Nixon and Kissinger would exploit the split in furtherance of Western interests.

The other criticism is that Goldwater considers his vision to be ultimately a piratical one, in contrast to socialist materialism.  Goldwater is too quick to cede material primacy to the socialists, arguing that their success not withstanding, it is not worth the spiritual costs.   It is true that freedom is good in and of itself, but he underestimates it's economic utility.  Again, in the context of the time the book was written, this is understandable.  It was only 8 or so years since sputnik, and a half-decade before the moon landing.  North Korea was generally seen as the more prosperous and stable of the two.  Khrushchev had recently proclaimed, "we will bury you" banging his (conspicuously well made) shoe for emphasis at the UN.  Yet, over time, it became increasingly clear that the ability of planned economies to mobilize resources could never match the capacity of free economies for generating wealth.  Today, progressives, who address it by emphasizing other priorities, often concede this point.  In other words, Goldwater allowed for socialist material success prematurely, and argued accordingly.

Still, this is a compelling book.  As it nears 50 years old, some allowances need to be made for the era in which it was written, and an understanding of the prevailing perceptions and concerns is helpful.  In all though, title notwithstanding, it provides a compelling vision of a more liberal society.

Prague

Freedom's a tough sell.  It's a relatively recent, and novel political idea.   Most government, since the earliest, has been arbitrary and authoritarian.  The enlightment brought new ideas, but concepts of individual autonomy, consent of the governed and secure property rights are recent and still contested.   The benefits of liberal society ultimately may lead to its undoing.  Freedom aside from being worthwhile to most in and of itself, has been instrumental in the creation of material prosperity.  Yet freedom can be exploited through a democratic poliotical process to address concerns attributed to it, however justifiably, such as for example inequality.  There is the risk that policies curtailing freedoms to  address inequality serve to shift the basis of inequality towards one based on political power and  connections.  This could be part of what Schumpeter had in mind in arguing that  democracy leads to socialism and inflation.
This dynamic leads to the rise of a political class with a greater interest in preserving its power through patronage and the consumption of wealth generated in a more liberal era than in preserving freedom and market systems responsible for the generation of wealth.  This can be seen in Argentina, Venezuela, Western Europe, and is apparent in this country, particularly in places like California and Michigan.
Counter examples, illustrating the risks of utopian promises made by grasping politicians, in the eastern block during the cold war and the fascist countries before, still exist but are less clearly defined.  Before 1989, credible evidence that a person or groupd was associated with communism was broadly considered damnable.  We now have the first generation with no such examples.  The generation with no living memory of the USSR, (or of Maoist China) comes of age during a time of widespread economic hardship, much of which is blamed on liberal economy, and by extension, liberal society.  This may make them especially susceptible to illiberal, authoriatian ideas.
Here are some pictures from a brief trip to Prauge a couple of years ago, a few of which might be somewhat related to this post's content, but mostly not.

Wartburg

Known for crystal souverniers

quality hotdog stand

trabi

lot of silver

WWI memorial

Kafka's sister's house

very small

Memorial to Jan Palach and Jan Zajic, students who immolated themselves in protest of 1968 Soviet invasion

Same architect as dome from famous Hiroshima photo

Cold war joke: Why do Skoda's have heated rear windows?  To keep your hands warm as you push.

According to my guide, pork is the preferred vegitable

Photo of a widely resented Stalinist monument built shortly after the war, since destroyed.