September 28, 2010

Fortschritte im interkulturellen Dialog

Gelesen in Heinz Dieter Kittsteiners posthum erschienenen Buch Die Stabilisierungsmoderne. Deutschland und Europa 1618-1715, eigentlich dem ersten Halbband einer auf sechs Halbbände angelegten Deutschen Geschichte in den Stufen der Moderne (die aufgrund von Kittsteiners plötzlichem Tod im Sommer 2008 nicht zu Ende leider nicht mehr fertiggestellt werden wird), S.310-311:

"Von Gnaden des im Himmel waltenden Gottes verpfänden Wir, Mehmed, glorreicher und ganz allgewaltiger Kaiser von Babylonien und Judäa, vom Orient und Okzident, König aller irdischen und himmlischen Könige, Großkönig des heiligen Arabien und Mauretanien, geborener und ruhmgekrönter König Jerusalems, Gebieter und Herr des Grabes des gekreuzigten Gottes der Ungläubigen, Dir, Cäsar Roms [gemeint ist Kaiser Leopold I. in Wien], und Dir, König von Polen, Unser heiligstes Wort, ebenso allen Deinen Anhängern, daß Wir im Begriffe sind, Dein Ländchen mit Krieg zu überziehen, und führen Wir mit Uns 13 Könige mit 1.300.000 Kriegern, Fußvolk und Reiterei, und werden Dein Ländchen mit diesem Heer, von dem weder Du noch Deine Anhänger eine Ahnung hatten, ohne Gnade und Barmherzigkeit mit Hufeisen zertreten und dem Feuer und Schwert überliefern. Vor allem befehlen wir Dir, Uns in Deiner Residenzstadt Wien zu erwarten, damit Wir Dich köpfen können; auch Du, kleines Königlein von Polen, tu dasselbe. Wir werden Dich sowie alle Deine Anhänger vertilgen und das allerletzte Geschöpf Gottes, wie es nur ein Giaur ist, von der Erde verschwinden lassen; Wir werden groß und klein zuerst den grausamsten Qualen aussetzen und dann dem schändlichsten Tod übergeben. Dein kleines Reich will ich Dir nehmen und dessen gesamte Bevölkerung von der Erde fegen. Dich und den König von Polen werden Wir so lange leben lassen, bis Ihr Euch überzeugt habt, daß Wir alles Angekündigte erfüllt. Dies zur Darnachachtung. Gegeben in Unserem 40. Lebensjahr und im 26. Jahr Unserer allmächtigen Regierung."
[Kriegserklärung des Sultans Mehmed IV. an den Kaiser des Heiligen Römischen Reiches Deutscher Nation und den König von Polen, 31. März 1683].

Man kann also angesichts des ganzen Geredes vom "Kampf der Kulturen" doch feststellen, dass ein gewisser Fortschritt im interkulturellen Dialog seit 1683, den sprichwörtlich gewordenen "Türken vor Wien", zu verzeichnen ist.

September 27, 2010

Unter Sozen

Schon lustig, die gestrige SpiegelTV-Reportage über die Widersprüche der linksbürgerlichen "Intelligentsia" (auch wenn sich der eine oder die andere Leser_in dieses Blogs dabei vielleicht auf die Füße getreten fühlt):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4It3YZrgtqo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1IMPsuzShs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8nPSvfLr_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zxpiw08xc

Debord auf Venezuelanisch

52% für die Opposition, aber...

...das Spektakel muss weitergehen!

(via dem neuen Blog der anarchistischen Zeitschrift El Libertario)

Mehr zum Tag auf Englisch z.B. hier und auf Spanisch z.B. dort.

September 25, 2010

Both kinds of music (19): Swing Kids

Die frühen Vierziger waren auch die Hochzeit des Western Swing, dessen Ursprünge und Merkmale wir hier schon behandelt haben. Tatsächlich wurde der Begriff "Western Swing" erst in dieser Zeit geprägt, vor allem von dem "Viertelindianer" Spade Cooley, der ab 1942 versuchte, Bob Wills die Krone des "King of Western Swing" abzunehmen. Ein Kurzfilm aus dem Jahr 1945 über die (fiktive)  Lebensgeschichte Cooleys trägt sogar den Titel "Spade Cooley: King of Western Swing". Und oh Wunder, den unterhaltsamen Streifen findet man integral auf Youtube:

Aber auch der "Original King of Western Swing" Bob Wills feierte Anfang der 1940er Jahre seine größten Erfolge, zum Beispiel mit dem Titel New San Antonio Rose (1940), hier in einer Art Hybridversion mit dem Crooner Tommy Duncan aus dem Jahr 1944:


Die zunehmende Hinwendung des Western Swings hin zum typischen Big Band-Sound dieser Jahre beruhte auf Gegenseitigkeit, wie z.B. dieser Clip von Ella Mae Morse mit Freddie Slack samt Orchester zeigt: Cow Cow Boogie (1942):

September 24, 2010

Ein Gesetz ist auch keine Lösung

Die schönste Headline des Tages findet man heute auf dem Titelblatt der altehrwürdigen Wochenzeitschrift De Letzeburger Bauer:

"Kein Gesetz wird die Wildschweine dazu bewegen, kollektiven Selbstmord zu begehen."

September 22, 2010

Ich bin nicht frei...

Ich kann nur wählen
Welche Diebe mich bestehlen
Welche Mörder mir befehlen

An diesen alten Scherben-Klassiker (Keine Macht für Niemand, 1972) musste ich bei diesem Bild, das mir Blog-Leserin Alicia zugeschickt hat (thanks for the pic, Alicia :-) ):

September 19, 2010

Talk like a japanese space pirate day

Später Beitrag zu einem hübschen Ami-Brauch:

(Trailer für Harlock Saga: Das Rheingold, trotz der Musik aus der Walküre).

September 18, 2010

Both kinds of music (18): Linke Country-Musik nennt man Folk

Anfang der 1940er Jahre etabliert sich gegenüber der "Hillbilly"-Szene eine urbanere Gegenbewegung, die zwar ähnlich wie die Country-Musik auf den Katalog volkstümlicher amerikanischer Musik zurückgriff, jedoch politischere bzw. sozialkritische Themen aufgriff und zumeist klar auf der politischen Linken einzuordnen war: die Folk-Musik. Ich zitiere aus Pietro Scaruffis kurzer Geschichte der Country-Musik:
"If country music represented the quintessential American values, and a positive attitude towards the American way of life, others (harking back to the epics of the itinerant 'hobos') were seeing through the American Dream and confronting the issues of poverty, fascism and racism.(...) These folksingers had little in common (stylistically or ideologically) with the hillbillies of country music, but they ended up creating the urban audience for country music. Country music, even in states that were rapidly urbanizing such as Texas, had been catering mainly to the countryside. The post-war generation of folksingers catered almost exclusively to the audience of the big cities. It wasn't long before country music learned that lesson."

Die Grenzen zwischen Country bzw. Hillbilly und Folk waren allerdings, trotz ästhetischer wie politischer Differenzen, durchaus fließend. Tatsächlich ersetzte Billboard den Oberbegriff "Hillbilly Music" 1944 durch "Folk songs and blues", bevor 1949 der bis heute vorherrschende Begriff "Country and Western" eingeführt wurde.

Der bekannteste unter den linken Folk-Sängern war natürlich Woody Guthrie aus Okemah, Oklahoma, der sich  trotz dieser Herkunft dagegen verwahrte, als "Hillbilly", "Mountain Hick" oder explizit als "Louisiana Swamp Dweller" vermarktet zu werden. Hier der Titel Jesus Christ aus dem Jahr 1940 (auf die Melodie der Ballade  über Jesse James):

Woody's Cousin Jack Guthrie blieb hingegen der traditionellen Country-Musik treu, wie z.B. mit dem von Woody geschriebenen Titel Oklahoma Hills (1944):


Ein weiterer Folk-Sänger auf der Kreuzung zwischen Country und Folk, der sogar einmal als "singing cowboy" gecastet wurde, ist Burl Ives, hier mit der Urversion des Klassikers Ghost Riders in the Sky (1949) - mit kitschiger Streicherbegleitung.

September 16, 2010

Von der Meinungsfreiheit

Marguerite Biermann, ehemalige Richterin aus Luxemburg, in den letzten Monaten hauptsächlich als Streiterin wider die "jüdische Lobby" in Erscheinung getreten, was ihr einen Prozess und eine symbolische Geldstrafe wegen "Beleidigung" des Consistoire Israélite (allerdings ist die Berufung abzuwarten, die meines Erachtens durchaus Erfolg haben kann, da das Urteil in erster Instanz recht widersprüchlich formuliert war) - mehr dazu bei den Bloggerkollegen von L for Liberty - sowie viel Unterstützung seitens der Luxemburger Linken einbrachte (Henri Wehenkel schrieb etwa auf goosch.lu Frau Biermann sei "de gauche, de la vraie gauche"), überschlägt sich heute im Tageblatt geradezu mit Lobhymnen auf Thilo Sarrazin:

"Thilo Sarrazin ist ein intelligenter, mutiger Mensch, wie es deren leider nur wenige gibt. Er gehört zu jenen, denen wir die geistigen Errungenschaften und den Durchbruch der Vernunft verdanken. Viele seiner Vorgänger haben ihren Mut mit Verfolgung und sogar mit ihrem Leben bezahlt, und auch heute noch kämpfen überall in der Welt solche Persönlichkeiten, trotz gefährlichen Widerstands, für den Respekt der Menschenrechte.(...)" (das geht über mehrere Abschnitte so weiter...).

Gegen Sarrazin laufe eine "Hexenjagd", was "erschreckend und furchterregend" sei "in einem zivilisierten Land, das den Anspruch, ein demokratischer Rechtsstaat zu sein, erhebt" (sic). Deutschland sei durch eine angebliche Beschneidung der Meinungsfreiheit von Thilo Sarrazin "schnurgerade" auf dem Weg "in die Diktatur und den Obskurantismus". Nun kann man sich mit Freerk Huisken fragen: Wo bitte schön wurde Sarrazin denn mit Gewalt daran gehindert, seine Meinung zu verbreiten?
"Was lernt man eigentlich über Meinungsfreiheit, wenn in TV-Sendungen, in der BILD, von der SPD-Basis und in zahllosen Leserzuschriften die 'unerträgliche Beschränkung der Meinungsfreiheit' für Th. Sarrazin angeprangert wird? Hat der sein Buch denn nicht veröffentlichen können, hat es das Buch nicht gleich auf die Bestsellerlisten gebracht, ist es nicht öffentlicher Gesprächsstoff in allen Medien, hat er nicht in zahllosen Interviews nachher Rede und Antwort gestanden? Wird nicht die Debatte über seine Thesen durch den Parteiausschlussantrag der SPD und den wahrscheinlichen Rauswurf aus dem Vorstand der Bundesbank noch weiter angeheizt? Wird er nicht dadurch Gelegenheit erhalten, seine 'Meinung' noch häufiger zu vertreten und diskutieren? Es geht also gar nicht um die Freiheit der Meinung, es geht allein um den Inhalt seiner Meinung."

Meinungsfreiheit, wie Marguerite Biermann sie versteht, scheint in der Tat darin zu bestehen, dass sie sich, wenn sie rassistischen oder antisemitischen Unfug verbreitet, nicht sagen lassen will, sie verbreite rassistischen oder antisemitischen Unfug, weil das eben als schweren Eingriff in die eigene Meinungsfreiheit empfunden wird. Meinungsfreiheit besteht also darin, dass die eigene Meinung nicht zu kritisieren ist.

Allerdings schrieb schon Esther Vilar: "Die Freiheit der Presse ist also letzten Endes die Freiheit des Verbrauchers, in seiner Zeitung seine eigene Meinung zu lesen." (Das polygame Geschlecht; nach der DTV-Ausgabe Der dressierte Mann. Das polygame Geschlecht. Das Ende der Dressur. Neuausgabe in einem Band, 12. Auflage, 2007, S.198).

September 14, 2010

Jerusalem, anno 1918

Diesmal ohne kämpfende Mönche, dafür bewegte Bilder aus dem Jerusalem des Jahres 1918:

(via Elder of Ziyon)

Das etwas andere Gefängnis

Die Zeitschrift Independent review berichtet in ihrer Frühjahrsausgabe über ein sozusagen "selbstverwaltetes" Gefängnis: San Pedro in La Paz, Bolivien. Ein Auszug:

"San Pedro Prison sits in downtown La Paz, Bolivia. Like correctional facilities in the United States, it has tall, concrete walls around it and guards who stand ominously at its gates. However, unlike prison officials in the United States, those at San Pedro do little more than prevent inmates from escaping - no guards maintain order inside the prison. The guards’ primary job is to keep the inmates inside the prison and to call the roll once a day (Romei 2003; Young and McFadden 2003, 141). Inmates do not wear uniforms; bars do not block the cell doors and windows (Estefania 2009). According to a report by the National Lawyers Guild, 'the prison administration provides no rehabilitation services, no schools, and minimal health care' (Baltimore et al. 2007, 24). In fact, inmates must pay for any medical services they receive, and the inmates themselves provide these services (Young and McFadden 2003, 58–61). About food services, the guild reports, 'Although the prison provides a gruel-like soup and bread twice a day (and meat twice a week), prisoners report that it tastes bad and causes ulcers and hepatitis. Therefore all those who can afford it purchase or cook their own food. The kitchen itself was filthy, and the prisoners working in the kitchen were there as a three month form of unpaid punishment, so they had no incentive to do their job well' (Baltimore et al. 2007, 24). A delegation from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concurs that the 'food is not properly prepared, which might lead in many cases to epidemics and gastrointestinal infections, and that food is also insufficient, obliging many prisoners to pay for their own food, if they have the money to do so' (Organization of American States 2007, 54).
Designed to hold 250 inmates, San Pedro Prison now houses from 1,300 to 1,500 (Ceaser 1998; Organization of American States 2007, 49; Estefania 2009). In addition, many inmates’ wives and children also reside in the prison. Prison officials do not assign cells to inmates, who must purchase their own living quarters from other inmates. The members of this prison community must provide for themselves without assistance from their jailers."

Innerhalb des Gefängnisses gibt es sogar eine eigene Fussballmeisterschaft, die von Coca-Cola gesponsert wird; der Softdrinkmulti ist im Gegenzug zum Gefängnismonopolisten geworden: "Many sections even sponsor intersectional soccer tournaments (Baltimore et al. 2007, 24; Estefania 2009). Inmates enjoy gambling on matches between the sections’ soccer teams, so the section leaders sometimes buy nice cells in their sections for the most skilled players (Gassaway 2004). The Coca-Cola Company sponsors teams inside the prison and provides tables, chairs, and umbrellas in exchange for a monopoly of the prison’s soft drink business (Young and McFadden 2003, 233; Gassaway 2004)."

Eine Fotostrecke zu San Pedro findet man auf den Seiten der BBC. Besuchen kann man das Gefängnis übrigens auch, gegen Bares versteht sich.

September 11, 2010

Both kinds of music (17): Hillbillies go to war

Wie eigentlich alle Formen der Populärkultur wurde auch die Country-Musik in die "große patriotische Anstrengung", d.h. die Kriegspropaganda im Kampf gegen die Achse eingebunden. Heute bringe ich ohne lange Einleitung und Erläuterungen drei Titel aus diesem Zeitrahmen:

Elton Britt - There's a star spangled banner waving somewhere (1942)

Roy Acuff & his Smoky Mountain Boys and Girls - Smoke on the water (1943)

Woody Guthrie - All you fascists bound to lose (1944)

September 09, 2010

182 Jahre Lev Nikolaevič Tolstoj

Lev Nikolaevič Tolstoj, oder allgemein gebräuchlicher Leo Tolstoi, der am 28. August 1828 (nach julianischem Kalender; d.i. der 9. September nach gregorianischem Kalender) auf einem Landgut nahe der zentralrussischen Stadt Tula geboren wurde, ist nicht nur einer der maßgeblichen Schriftsteller der russischen Literatur, sondern zugleich auch der Begründer einer radikalpazifistischen, heretisch-christlichen Spielart des Anarchismus, die sozusagen Proudhon und Kropotkin mit Christus verband. Als Illustration habe ich folgende Kritik Tolstois am anarchistischen Terrorismus der Jahrhundertwende (in englischer Übersetzung) ausgewählt:

Thou Shalt Not Kill

'Thou shalt not kill.' -EXOD. xx. 13.
'The disciple is not above his master: but every one when he is perfected shall be as his master.' -LUKE vi. 40
'For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.' -MATT. xxvi. 52.
'Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.' - MATT. vii. 12.
    
When Kings are executed after trial, as in the case of Charles L., Louis XVI., and Maximilian of Mexico; or when they are killed in Court conspiracies, like Peter III., Paul, and various Sultans, Shahs, and Khans - little is said about it; but when they are killed without a trial and without a Court conspiracy- as in the case of Henry IV. of France, Alexander II., the Empress of Austria, the late Shah of Persia, and, recently, Humbert - such murders excite the greatest surprise and indignation among Kings and Emperors and their adherents, just as if they themselves never took part in murders, nor profited by them, nor instigated them. But, in fact, the mildest of the murdered Kings (Alexander II. or Humbert, for instance), not to speak of executions in their own countries, were instigators of, and accomplices and partakers in, the murder of tens of thousands of men who perished on the field of battle; while more cruel Kings and Emperors have been guilty of hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of murders.

The teaching of Christ repeals the law, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth'; but those who have always clung to that law, and still cling to it, and who apply it to a terrible degree - not only claiming 'an eye for an eye,' but without provocation decreeing the slaughter of thousands, as they do when they declare war - have no right to be indignant at the application of that same law to themselves in so small and insignificant a degree that hardly one King or Emperor is killed for each hundred thousand, or perhaps even for each million, who are killed by the order and with the consent of Kings and Emperors. Kings and Emperors not only should not be indignant at such murders as those of Alexander II. and Humbert, but they should be surprised that such murders are so rare, considering the continual and universal example of murder that they give to mankind.

The crowd are so hypnotized that they see what is going on before their eyes, but do not understand its meaning. They see what constant care Kings, Emperors, and Presidents devote to their disciplined armies; they see the reviews, parades, and manoeuvres the rulers hold, about which they boast to one another; and the people crowd to see their own brothers, brightly dressed up in fools' clothes, turned into machines to the sound of drum and trumpet, all, at the shout of one man, making one and the same movement at one and the same moment-but they do not understand what it all means. Yet the meaning of this drilling is very clear and simple: it is nothing but a preparation for killing.

It is stupefying men in order to make them fit instruments for murder. And those who do this, who chiefly direct this and are proud of it, are the Kings, Emperors and Presidents. And it is just these men - who are specially occupied in organizing murder and who have made murder their profession, who wear military uniforms and carry murderous weapons (swords) at their sides - that are horrified and indignant when one of themselves is murdered.

The murder of Kings - the murder of Humbert - is terrible, but not on account of its cruelty. The things done by command of Kings and Emperors - not only past events such as the massacre of St.. Bartholomew religious butcheries, the terrible repressions of peasant rebellions, and Paris coups d'etat, but the present-day Government executions, the doing-to-death of prisoners in solitary confinement, the Disciplinary Battallions, the hangings, the beheadings, the shootings and slaughter in wars - are incomparably more cruel than the murders committed by Anarchists. Nor are these murders terrible because undeserved. If Alexander II. and Humbert did not deserve death, still less did the thousands of Russians who perished at Plevna, or of Italians who perished in Abyssinia. Such murders are terrible, not because they are cruel or unmerited, but because of the unreasonableness of those who commit them.

If the regicides act under the influence of personal feelings of indignation evoked by the sufferings of an oppressed people, for which they hold Alexander or Carnot or Humbert responsible; or if they act from personal feelings of revenge, then - however immoral their conduct may be - it is at least intelligible; but how is it that a body of men (Anarchists, we are told) such as those by whom Bresci was sent., and who are now threatening another Emperor - how is that they cannot devise any better means of improving the condition of humanity than by killing people whose destruction can no more be of use than the decapitation of that mythical monster on whose neck a new head appeared as soon as one was cut of? Kings and Emperors have long ago arranged for themselves a system like that of a magazine-rifle : as soon as one bullet has been discharged another takes its place. Le roi est mort, vive le roi! So what is the use of killing them?

Only on a most superficial view, can the killing of these men seem a means of saving the nations from oppression and from wars destructive of human life.

One only need remember that similar oppression and similar war went on, no matter who was at the head of the Government - Nicholas or Alexander, Frederick or Wilhelm, Napoleon or Louis, Palmerston or Gladstone, McKinley or anyone else-in order to understand that it is not any particular person who causes these oppressions and these wars from which the nations suffer. The misery of nations is caused not by particular persons, but by the particular order of Society under which the people are so tied up together that they find themselves all in the power of a few men, or more often in the power of one single man: a man so perverted by his unnatural position as arbiter of the fate and lives of millions, that he is always in an unhealthy state, and always suffers more or less from a mania of self-aggrandizement, which only his exceptional position conceals from general notice.

Apart from the fact that such men are surrounded from earliest childhood to the grave by the most insensate luxury dud an atmosphere of falsehood and flattery which always accompanies them, their whole education and all their occupations are centred on one object: learning about former murders, the best present-day ways of murdering, and the best preparations for future murder. From childhood they learn about killing in all its possible forms. They always carry about with them murderous weapons-swords or sabres; they dress themselves in various uniforms; they attend parades, reviews and manoeuvres; they visit one another, presenting one another with Orders and nominating one another to the command of regiments - and not only does no one tell them plainly what they are doing or say that to busy one's self with preparations for killing is revolting and criminal, but from all sides they hear nothing but approval and enthusiasm for all this activity of theirs. Every time they go out, and at each parade and review, crowds of people flock to greet them with enthusiasm, and it seems to them as if the whole nation approves of their conduct. The only part of the Press thiat reaches them, and that seems to them the expression of the feelings of the whole people, or at least of its best representatives, most slavishly extols their every word and action, however silly or wicked they may be. Those around them, men and women., clergy and laity- all people who do not prize human dignity - vying with one another in refined flattery, agree with then, about anything and deceive them about everything making it impossible for them to see life as it is. Such rulers might live a hundred years without ever seeing one single really independent man or ever hearing the truth spoken. One is sometimes appalled to hear of the words and deeds of these men; but one need only consider their position in order to understand that anyone in their place would act as they do. If a reasonable man found himself in their place, there is only one reasonable action he could perform, and that would be to get away from such a position. Any one remaining in it would behave as they do.

What, indeed, must go on in the head of some Wilhelm of Germany - a narrow-minded, ill-educated, vain man, with the ideals of a German Junker - when there is nothing he can say so stupid or so horrid that it will not be met by an enthusiastic 'Hoch!' and be commented on by the Press of the entire world as though it were something highly important. When he says that, at his word, soldiers should be ready to kill their own fathers, people shout 'Hurrah !' When he says that the Gospel must be introduced with an iron fist - 'Hurrah!' When he says the army is to take no prisoners in China, but to slaughter everybody, he is not put into a lunatic asylum, but people shout 'Hurrah!' and set sail for China to execute his commands. Or Nicholas II. (a man naturally modest) begins his reign by announcing to venerable old men who had expressed a wish to be allowed to discuss their own affairs, that such ideas of self-government were 'insensate dreams,' - and the organs of the Press he sees and the people he meets, praise him for it. He proposes a childish, silly, and hypocritical project of universal peace, while at the same time ordering an increase in the army - and there are no limits to the laudations of his wisdom and virtue. Without any need, he foolishly and mercilessly insults and oppresses a whole nation, the Finns, and again lie hears nothing but praise. Finally, he arranges the Chinese slaughter - terrible in its injustice, cruelty and incompatibility with his peace projects - and from all sides, people applaud him, both as a victor and as a continuer of his father's peace policy.

What, indeed, must be going on in the heads and hearts of these men?

So it is not the Alexanders and Humberts, nor the Wilhelms, Nicholases, and Chamberlains - though they decree these oppressions of the nations and these wars - who are really the most guilty of these sins, but it is rather those who place and support them in the position of arbiters over the lives of their fellow-men. And, therefore, the thing to do is not to kill Alexanders, Nicholases, Wilhelms, and Humberts, but to cease to support the arrangement of society of which they are a result. And what supports the present order of society is the selfishness and stupefaction of the people, who sell their freedom and honour for insignificant material advantages.

People who stand on the lowest rung of the ladder - partly as a result of being stupefied by a patriotic and pseudo-religious education, and partly for the sake of personal advantages - cede their freedom and sense of human dignity at the bidding of these who stand above them and offer them material advantages. In the same way - in consequence of stupefaction, and chiefly for the sake of advantages -  those who are a little higher up the ladder cede their freedom and manly dignity, and the same thing repeats itself with those standing yet higher, and so on to the to most rung - to those who, or to him who, standing at the apex of the social cone have nothing more to obtain: for whom the only motives of action are love of power and vanity, and who are. generally so perverted and stupefied by the power of life and death which they hold over their fellow-men, and by the consequent servility and flattery of those who surround them, that, without ceasing to do evil, they feel quite assured that they are benefactors to the human race.

It is the people who sacrifice their dignity as men for material profit that produce these men who cannot act otherwise than as they do act, and with whom it is useless to be angry for their stupid and wicked actions. To kill such men is like whipping children whom one has first spoilt.

That nations should not be oppressed, and that there should be none of these useless wars, and that men may not be indignant with those who seem to cause these evils, and may not kill them- it seems that only a very small thing is necessary. It is necessary that men should understand things as they are, should call them by their right names, and should know that an army is an instrument for killing, and that the enrolment and management of an army - the very things which Kings, Emperors, and Presidents occupy themselves with so self-confidently - is a preparation for murder.

If only each King, Emperor, and President understood that his work of directing armies is not an honourable and important duty, as his flatterers persuade him it is, but a bad and shameful act of preparation for murder - and if each private individual understood that the payment of taxes wherewith to hire and equip soldiers, and, above all, army-service itself, are not matters of indifference, but are bad and shameful actions by which he not only permits but participates in murder-then this power of Emperors, Kings, and Presidents, which now arouses our indignation, and which causes them to be murdered, would disappear of itself.

So that the Alexanders, Carnots, Humberts, and others should not be murdered, but it should be explained to them that they are themselves murderers, and, chiefly, they should not be allowed to kill people: men should refuse to murder at their command.

If people do not yet act in this way, it is only because Governments, to maintain themselves, diligently exercise a hypnotic influence upon the people. And, therefore, we may help to prevent people killing either Kings or one another, not by killing - murder only increases the hypnotism - but by arousing people from their hypnotic condition.
And it is this I have tried to do by these remarks.
[August 8, o.s., 1900.]

September 08, 2010

"Und zum Schluss noch Karl Marx"

... so betitelt heute das Tageblatt einen Beitrag zum 80. Geburtstag des Schauspielers Mario Adorf, der offenbar seit Jahren davon träumt Karl Marx zu spielen. Doch niemand will sich des Stoffes annehmen, "das ärgert ihn [Adorf]. Er will Marx als Mensch zeigen, weg vom dialektischen Marxisten [sic], den die Kommunisten für sich reklamierten" (was ihn übrigens nicht davon abhält, selbst das baldige Ende des Kapitalismus zu prophezeien; der Kapitalismus soll allerdings nicht an seinen "inneren Widersprüchen" ersticken, sondern - neumodisch-ökologisch-korrekt - an den Grenzen des Wachstums). Genauer soll es in dem von Adorf avisierten Streifen um Marxens Kururlaub in Algier (20. Februar bis 2. Mai 1882) kurz vor dessen Tod gehen. Man erfährt dass "Friedrich Engels (...) ihn gedrängt [habe], dorthin zu gehen, um 'Das Kapital' zu Ende zu bringen". Nun geht nichts dergleichen aus dem Briefwechsel von Marx und Engels hervor, vielmehr scheint Marx sich auf ärztliche Empfehlung nach Algerien begeben haben. Wieso ausgerechnet eine Reise nach Algerien  Marx dazu hätte verleiten sollen, den lange überfälligen zweiten Band des Kapitals endlich fertigzustellen, ist auch etwas rätselhaft. Nach Adorf liegt es jedoch am Aufenthalt in Algier, dass Marx das Kapital eben nicht zu Ende brachte: "Doch Marx begegnete dem Islam, war fasziniert, brachte es nur zu Notizen."
Sollen wir daraus schließen, der alte Marx habe mit dem bon-mot "Alles was ich weiß, ist, dass ich kein Marxist bin" in Wahrheit eine späte Konversion zum Islam gemeint? Immerhin hatte Marx in früheren Jahren durchaus "Islamophobes" geschrieben, etwa in der Korrespondenz in der New York Daily Tribune, aus der ich hier erst kürzlich eine längere Passage vorgestellt habe: "Der Koran und die auf ihm fußende muselmanische Gesetzgebung reduzieren Geographie und Ethnographie der verschiedenen Völker auf die einfache und bequeme Zweiteilung in Gläubige und Ungläubige. Der Ungläubige ist 'harby', d.h. der Feind. Der Islam ächtet die Nation der Ungläubigen und schafft einen Zustand permanenter Feindschaft zwischen Muselmanen und Ungläubigen. In diesem Sinne waren die Seeräuberschiffe der Berberstaaten die heilige Flotte des Islam." (MEW, 10, S.170). Zudem hat sich Marx ausgerechnet in Algerien seinen "Prophetenbart (...) auf [dem] Altar eines algierschen Barbiers" (Marx an Engels, 28.4.1882; vgl. MEW, 35, S.60) geopfert - das oben eingefügte Foto wurde unmittelbar vor der Rasur geschossen. 

Von den von Adorf erwähnten "Notizen" weiß ich nichts; vielleicht wird uns darüber einmal ein noch nicht erschienener Band der Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe aufklären. Bis dahin sei auf Marx' Briefwechsel mit Engels und Verwandtschaft verwiesen, in dem sich anlässlich des Algier-Aufenthalts in der Tat zwei Passagen zum Islam finden. Zunächst schreibt "Mohr" über die algerischen Mauren an seine Tochter Laura, verheiratete Lafargue, am 14. April 1882:
"On a rough table, in inclined positions, their legs crossed, half a dozen Maure visitors [nach MEW unleserliche Stelle] were delighted in their small 'cafétières' (everyone gets one of his own) and together playing at cards (a conquest of civilisation). Most striking this spectacle: Some these Maures were dressed pretentiously, even richly, others in, for once I dare call it blouses, sometime of white woollen appearance, now in rags and tatters - but in the eyes of a true Musulman such accidents, good or bad luck, do not distinguish Mahomets children. Absolute equality in their social intercourse, not affected; on the contrary, only when demoralized, they become aware of it; as to the hatred against Christians and the hope of an ultimate victory over these infidels, their politicians justly consider this same feeling and practice of absolute equality (not of wealth or position but of personality) a guarantee of keeping up the one, of not giving up the latter. (Dennoch gehen sie zum Teufel without a revolutionary movement.)" (MEW, 35, S.308-309.)

Vier Tage später weiß Marx seinem Freund Engels eine Anekdote zu berichten:
"Du begreifst, daß ich mich aufs Ohr legen und Schlafkompensation ergattern müsse. Unterdes: Schlafe, was willst Du mehr! Nur muß ich vorher schlechten Streichs erwähnen, den die französische Autorität einem armen Räuber, armen vielfachen professionellen Mörder von Araber spielte. Erst zu allerletzt, wo, wie die infamen Cockneys sagten, on the moment 'to launch' den armen Sünder 'into eternity' - entdeckt er, daß er nicht erschossen, sondern guillotiniert werde! Dies gegen die Absprache! Gegen Versprechen! Er ward trotz Abrede guillotiniert. Aber nicht das alles [bisweilen Marx in Yoda-Manier reden...]. Seine Verwandten, wie die Franzosen es bisher erlaubt, erwarten, den Körper und den Kopf ihnen liefern, so daß sie letzten an erstern zusammennähen und 'das Ganze' dann bestatten. Quod non! Heulen und Fluchen und Toben; die französische Autorität schlug's ab, rund ab, und zum erstenmal! Kommt der Rumpf nun ins Paradies, so fragt Mohammed, wo hast du den Kopf verloren? Oder, wie brachte der Kopf um den Rumpf? Du bist nicht würdig ins Paradies! Mach dich scheren zum Christenhunden! Und so jammern die Verwandten. Dein Old Mohr" (MEW, 35, S.57-58.)
Woraus Adorf dann eine Faszination für den Islam ableitet. Ja, ganz offensichtlich, so wird's gewesen sein... (*sigh*)

September 05, 2010

Nahost-"Friedensprozess", anno 1939

... oder plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose:
"The British did not accept all the mufti's demands and were unable to bridge the gaps between Arab and Jewish positions. On 17 May they issued their new policy, the White Paper of 1939, based on the understandings they had reached with the delegations from the other Arab countries. The principal points were severe restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine and Jewish land purchases and agreement in principle to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within ten years - if Jewish-Arab relations would allow proper administration of the country. On the following day the Higher Arab Committee discussed the proposal. Hajj Amin chaired the meeting, which was attended by five other members. They decided to reject the White Paper, despite the fact that it included significant gains for the Arabs. The four members who were absent from this meeting favored acceptance of the British decision; they remained in the minority. The Nashashibis' announcement that they supported the new British policy was only of marginal significance because of their political weakness. So, despite the White Paper's many benefits for Arabs, and even though most of the Arab public in Palestine viewed it as an achievement, the official Palestinian Arab leadership rejected it.
The campaign against the opposition and its leaders continued after the promulgation of the White Paper, and it did not end when the rebellion ended. Ihsan al-Nahmer, an oppositionist in Nablus, discerned after the fact that there was a pattern to the rebel actions - they killed a prominent opposition figure in each of the country's regions: Rafe' al-Fahoum in Nazareth, Dr. Anwar Shuqayri in Acre, Ahmad and Muhammad Irshein in Jenin, Hasan Sidqi al-Dajani in Jerusalem, Nassir al-Din in Hebron, and prominent leaders in the villages. This was in addition to the death sentences passed on figures such as Fakhri Nashashibi and Fakhri 'Abd Al-Hadi, which were proclaimed publicly. In this way the Husseini leadership silenced opposition political voices (although oppositionists continued to extend military and intelligence aid to the British and Zionists)."

Aus: Hillel Cohen, Army of Shadows. Palestinian collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 2008, S.133-134. Die Fußnoten habe ich übersprungen.

September 04, 2010

Both kinds of music (16): Bill Monroe und die Anfänge des Bluegrass

Ein weiteres musizierendes Bruderpaar der 1930er waren die Monroe Brothers, Bill und Charlie Monroe aus Rosine, Kentucky. Die Monroe Brothers spielten eine sehr Gospel-lastige Variante der Country-Musik, im sogenannten "High lonesome sound", wie z.B. im folgenden Song Do you call that religion? (1936):

1938 verließ Bill, der seinen Bruder als Band-Leader empfand, die Monroe Brothers und gründete eine eigene Band, zunächst die kurzlebige Formation The Kentuckians, und kurz danach die Blue Grass Boys, die "Original Bluegrass Band", deren Stil so eigenwillig und prägnant war, dass sie damit einem neuen musikalischen Genre den Namen gaben, eben den Bluegrass. Allerdings waren die frühen Aufnahmen von Bill Monroe und den Blue Grass Boys noch nicht völlig konform zu den Reinheitsgeboten des Bluegrass, so z.B. dieses Instrumental Blue Grass Special (1945), das mit einem Akkordeon-Solo endet:

Der "klassische" Bluegrass-Sound, der sich durch Prädominanz von Saiteninstrumenten (Gitarre, Banjo, Mandoline), ausgefeilten Harmonien, schnellen Tempos und Breaks auszeichnet, und nicht zuletzt durch den Film O Brother, where art thou mit George Clooney (der allerdings im Jahr 1937 spielt) in den letzten Jahren zu neuer Popularität kam, wurde vor allem in den Jahren 1946-1948 geprägt, als Earl Scruggs den Part des Gitarristen Banjospielers in den Blue Grass Boys übernahm. Hier ein Titel aus dieser Zeit: It's mighty dark to travel in einer Fernsehaufnahme aus den 1980ern (eine zerkratzte Fassung des Originals aus dem Jahr 1947 findet man hier):

September 02, 2010

171 Jahre Henry George

Am 2. September 1839 wurde in Philadelphia Henry George geboren, der, nachdem er mit 14 als Matrose angeheuert hatte, später Goldgräber und (ähnlich wie Proudhon) Typograph wurde, und schließlich Eigentümer der San Francisco Daily Evening Post war, mit Progress and Poverty (1879) einen Bestseller landete. In diesem Werk legt George u.a. das Kernstück seiner sozialreformerischen Ideen dar: die "Single Tax" auf der Bodenrente, die sämtliche anderen Steuern ablösen sollte. 1886 wurde er als Kandidat der gewerkschaftsnahen United Labor Party fast zum Bürgermeister von New York City (Anhänger von George warfen den erfolgreichen Demokraten Wahlbetrug vor). Georges Ideen, die heute außerhalb der USA fast unbekannt sind, haben dort noch einige Verteidiger, unter anderem die sogenannten "Geolibertarians" auf der libertären Linken, jedoch hat auch der frühere grüne bzw. unabhängige Präsidentschaftskandidat Ralph Nader schon wiederholt für eine Variante der Georgeschen "Land value tax" ausgesprochen.

Wie andere Autoren des 19. Jahrhunderts wie etwa Thomas Hodgskin oder Benjamin Tucker, mag die Bezeichnung "Sozialist" bei George erstaunen, da er gleichzeitig für Freihandel eintritt und in vielerlei Hinsicht als Liberaler erscheint. In der Tat waren Sozialismus und Freihandel für George kein Gegensatz, sondern bedingten sich sogar gegenseitig, so der folgende Text, das 28. Kapitel von Protection or Free Trade (1886, nach der Ausgabe in den Complete Works, Band IV, S.299-312):

Free Trade and Socialism

Throughout the civilized world, and pre-eminently in Great Britain and the United States, a power is now arising which is capable of carrying the principles of free trade to their logical conclusion. But there are difficulties in the way of concentrating this power on such a purpose.
It requires reflection to see that manifold effects result from a single cause, and that the remedy for a multitude of evils may lie in one simple reform. As in the infancy of medicine, men were disposed to think each distinct symptom called for a distinct remedy, so when thought begins to turn to social subjects there is a disposition to seek a special cure for every ill, or else (another form of the same shortsightedness) to imagine the only adequate remedy to be something which presupposes the absence of those ills; as, for instance, that all men should be good, as the cure for vice and crime; or that all men should be provided for by the State, as the cure for poverty.
There is now sufficient social discontent and a sufficient desire for social reform to accomplish great things if concentrated on one line. But attention is distracted and effort divided by schemes of reform which though they may be good in themselves are, with reference to the great end to be attained, either inadequate or super-adequate.
Here is a traveler who, beset by robbers, has been left bound, blindfolded, and gagged. Shall we stand in a knot about him and discuss whether to put a piece of court-plaster on his cheek or a new patch on his coat, or shall we dispute with each other as to what road he ought to take and whether a bicycle, a tricycle, a horse and wagon, or a railway, would best help him on? Should we not rather postpone such discussion until we have cut the man's bonds? Then he can see for himself, speak for himself, and help himself. Though with a scratched cheek and a torn coat, he may get on his feet, and if he cannot find a conveyance to suit him, he will at least be free to walk.
Very much like such a discussion is a good deal of that now going on over "the social problem"—a discussion in which all sorts of inadequate and impossible schemes are advocated to the neglect of the simple plan of removing restrictions and giving Labor the use of its own powers.  
This is the first thing to do. And, if not of itself sufficient to cure all social ills and bring about the highest social state, it will at least remove the primary cause of widespread poverty, give to all the opportunity to use their labor and secure the earnings that are its due, stimulate all improvement, and make all other reforms easier.
It must be remembered that reforms and improvements in themselves good may be utterly inefficient to work any general improvement until some more fundamental reform is carried out. It must be remembered that there is in every work a certain order which must be observed to accomplish anything. To a habitable house a roof is as important as walls; and we express in a word the end to which a house is built when we speak of putting a roof over our heads. But we cannot build a house from roof down; we must build from foundation up.  
To recur to our simile of the laborer habitually preyed upon by a series of robbers. It is surely wiser in him to fight them one by one, than all together. And the robber that takes all he has left is the one against whom his efforts should first be directed. For no matter how he may drive off the other robbers, that will not avail him except as it may make it easier to get rid of the robber that takes all that is left. But by withstanding this robber he will secure immediate relief, and being able to get home more of his earnings than before, will be able so to nourish and strengthen himself that he can better contend with robbers—can, perhaps, buy a gun or hire a lawyer, according to the method of fighting in fashion in his country. 
It is in just such a way as this that Labor must seek to rid itself of the robbers that now levy upon its earnings. Brute strength will avail little unless guided by intelligence.
The first attempts of workingmen to improve their condition are by combining to demand higher wages of their direct employers. Something can be done in this way for those within such organizations; but it is after all very little. For a trades-union can only artificially lessen competition within the trade; it cannot affect the general conditions which force men into bitter competition with each other for the opportunity to gain a living. And such organizations as the Knights of Labor, which are to trades-unions what the trades-union is to its individual members, while they give greater power, must encounter the same difficulties in their efforts to raise wages directly. All such efforts have the inherent disadvantage of struggling against general tendencies. They are like the attempts of a man in a crowd to gain room by forcing back those who press upon him—like attempts to stop a great engine by the sheer force of human muscle, without cutting off steam.  
This, those who are at first inclined to put faith in the power of trades-unionism are beginning to see, and the logic of events must more and more lead them to see. But the perception that to accomplish large results general tendencies must be controlled, inclines those who do not analyze these tendencies into their causes to transfer faith from some form of the voluntary organization of labor to some form of governmental organization and direction.
All varieties of what is vaguely called socialism recognize with more or less clearness the solidarity of the interests of the masses of all countries. Whatever may be objected to socialism in its extremest forms, it has at least the merit of lessening national prejudices and aiming at the disbandment of armies and the suppression of war. It is thus opposed to the cardinal tenet of protectionism that the interests of the people of different "nations" are diverse and antagonistic. But, on the other hand, those who call themselves socialists, so far from being disposed to look with disfavor upon governmental interference and regulation, are disposed to sympathize with protection as in this respect in harmony with socialism, and to regard free trade, at least as it has been popularly presented, as involving a reliance on that principle of free competition which to their thinking means the crushing of the weak.
Let us endeavor, as well as can in brief be done, to trace the relations between the conclusions to which we have come and what, with various shades of meaning, is termed "socialism." (*)
In socialism as distinguished from individualism there is an unquestionable truth—and that a truth to which (especially by those most identified with freetrade principles) too little attention has been paid. Man is primarily an individual—a separate entity, differing from his fellows in desires and powers, and requiring for the exercise of those powers and the gratification of those desires individual play and freedom. But he is also a social being, having desires that harmonize with those of his fellows, and powers that can only be brought out in concerted action. There is thus a domain of individual action and a domain of social action—some things which can best be done when each acts for himself, and some things which can best be done when society acts for all its members. And the natural tendency of advancing civilization is to make social conditions relatively more important, and more and more to enlarge the domain of social action. This has not been sufficiently regarded, and at the present time, evil unquestionably results from leaving to individual action functions that by reason of the growth of society and the development of the arts have passed into the domain of social action; just as on the other hand, evil unquestionably results from social interference with what properly belongs to the individual. Society ought not to leave the telegraph and the railway to the management and control of individuals; nor yet ought society to step in and collect individual debts or attempt to direct individual industry.
But while there is a truth in socialism which individualists forget, there is a school of socialists who in like manner ignore the truth there is in individualism, and whose propositions for the improvement of social conditions belong to the class I have called "super-adequate." Socialism in its narrow sense—the socialism that would have the State absorb capital and abolish competition—is the scheme of men who, looking upon society in its most complex organization, have failed to see that principles obvious in a simpler stage still hold true in the more intimate relations that result from the division of labor and the use of complex tools and methods, and have thus fallen into fallacies elaborated by the economists of a totally different school, who have taught that capital is the employer and sustainer of labor, and have striven to confuse the distinction between property in land and property in labor-products. Their scheme is that of men who, while revolting from the heartlessness and hopelessness of the "orthodox political economy," are yet entangled in its fallacies and blinded by its confusions. Confounding "capital" with "means of production," and accepting the dictum that "natural wages" are the least on which competition can force the laborer to live, they essay to cut a knot they do not see how to unravel, by making the State the sole capitalist and employer, and abolishing competition.
The carrying on by government of all production and exchange, as a remedy for the difficulty of finding employment on the one side, and for overgrown fortunes on the other, belongs to the same category as the prescription that all men should be good. That if all men were assigned proper employment and all wealth fairly distributed, then none would need employment and there would be no injustice in distribution, is as indisputable a proposition as that if all were good none would be bad. But it will not help a man perplexed as to his path to tell him that the way to get to his journey's end is to get there.
That all men should be good is the greatest desideratum, but it can only be secured by the abolition of conditions which tempt some and drive others into evil doing. That each should render according to his abilities and receive according to his needs, is indeed the very highest social state of which we can conceive, but how shall we hope to attain such perfection until we can first find some way of securing to every man the opportunity to labor and the fair earnings of his labor. Shall we try to be generous before we have learned how to be just?
All schemes for securing equality in the conditions of men by placing the distribution of wealth in the hands of government have the fatal defect of beginning at the wrong end. They pre-suppose pure government; but it is not government that makes society; it is society that makes government; and until there is something like substantial equality in the distribution of wealth, we cannot expect pure government.
But to put all men on a footing of substantial equality, so that there could be no dearth of employment, no "over-production," no tendency of wages to the minimum of subsistence, no monstrous fortunes on the one side and no army of proletarians on the other, it is not necessary that the state should assume the ownership of all the means of production and become the general employer and universal exchanger; it is necessary only that the equal rights of all to that primary means of production which is the source all other means of production are derived from, should be asserted. And this, so far from involving an extension of governmental functions and machinery, involves, as we have seen, their great reduction. It would thus tend to purify government in two ways—first by the betterment of the social conditions on which purity in government depends, and second, by the simplification of administration. This step taken, and we could safely begin to add to the functions of the state in its proper or co-operative sphere.
There is in reality no conflict between labor and capital; (**) the true conflict is between labor and monopoly. That a rich employer "squeezes" needy workmen may be true. But does this squeezing power result from his riches or from their need? No matter how rich an employer might be, how would it be possible for him to squeeze workmen who could make a good living for themselves without going into his employment? The competition of workmen with workmen for employment, which is the real cause that enables, and even in most cases forces, the employer to squeeze his workmen, arises from the fact that men, debarred of the natural opportunities to employ themselves, are compelled to bid against one another for the wages of an employer. Abolish the monopoly that forbids men to employ themselves, and capital could not possibly oppress labor. In no case could the capitalist obtain labor for less than the laborer could get by employing himself. Once remove the cause of that injustice which deprives the laborer of the capital his toil creates, and the sharp distinction between capitalist and laborer would, in fact, cease to exist.
They who, seeing how men are forced by competition to the extreme of human wretchedness, jump to the conclusion that competition should be abolished, are like those who, seeing a house burn down, would prohibit the use of fire.
The air we breathe exerts upon every square inch of our bodies a pressure of fifteen pounds. Were this pressure exerted only on one side, it would pin us to the ground and crush us to a jelly. But being exerted on all sides, we move under it with perfect freedom. It not only does not inconvenience us, but it serves such indispensable purposes that, relieved of its pressure, we should die.
So it is with competition. Where there exists a class denied all right to the element necessary to life and labor, competition is one-sided, and as population increases must press the lowest class into virtual slavery, and even starvation. But where the natural rights of all are secured, then competition, acting on every hand—between employers as between employed; between buyers as between sellers—can injure no one. On the contrary it becomes the most simple, most extensive, most elastic, and most refined system of co-operation, that, in the present stage of social development, and in the domain where it will freely act, we can rely on for the co-ordination of industry and the economizing of social forces.
In short, competition plays just such a part in the social organism as those vital impulses which are beneath consciousness do in the bodily organism. With it, as with them, it is only necessary that it should be free. The line at which the state should come in is that where free competition becomes impossible—a line analogous to that which in the individual organism separates the conscious from the unconscious functions. There is such a line, though extreme socialists and extreme individualists both ignore it. The extreme individualist is like the man who would have his hunger provide him food; the extreme socialist is like the man who would have his conscious will direct his stomach how to digest it.
Individualism and socialism are in truth not antagonistic but correlative. Where the domain of the one principle ends that of the other begins. And although the motto Laissez faire has been taken as the watch word of an individualism that tends to anarchism, and so-called free traders have made "the law of supply and demand" a stench in the nostrils of men alive to social injustice, there is in free trade nothing that conflicts with a rational socialism. On the contrary, we have but to carry out the free trade principle to its logical conclusions to see that it brings us to such socialism.
The free-trade principle is, as we have seen, the principle of free production—it requires not merely the abolition of protective tariffs, but the removal of all restrictions upon production.
Within recent years a class of restrictions on production, imposed by concentrations and combinations which have for their purpose the limiting of production and the increase of prices, have begun to make themselves felt and to assume greater and greater importance.
This power of combinations to restrict production arises in some cases from temporary monopolies granted by our patent laws, which (being the premium that society holds out to invention), have a compensatory principle, however faulty they may be in method.
Such cases aside, this power of restricting production is derived, in part, from tariff restrictions. Thus the American steel makers who have recently limited their production, and put up the price of rails 40 per cent. at one stroke, are enabled to do this only by the heavy duty on imported rails. They are able, by combination, to put up the price of steel rails to the point at which they could be imported plus the duty, but no further. Hence, with the abolition of the duty this power would be gone. To prevent the play of competition, a combination of the steel workers of the whole world would then be necessary, and this is practically impossible.
In other part, this restrictive power arises from ability to monopolize natural advantages. This would be destroyed if the taxation of land values made it unprofitable to hold land without using it. In still other part, it arises from the control of businesses which in their nature do not admit of competition, such as those of railway, telegraph, gas, and other similar companies.
I read in the daily papers that half a dozen representatives of the "anthracite coal interest" met last evening (March 24, 1886), in an office in New York. Their conference, interrupted only by a collation, lasted till three o'clock in the morning. When they separated they had come to "an understanding among gentlemen" to restrict the production of anthracite coal and advance its price.
Now how comes it that half a dozen men, sitting around some bottles of champagne and a box of cigars in a New York office, can by an "understanding among gentlemen" compel Pennsylvania miners to stand idle, and advance the price of coal along the whole eastern seaboard? The power thus exercised is derived in various parts from three sources.
1. From the protective duty on coal. Free trade would abolish that.
2. From the power to monopolize land, which enables them to prevent others from using coal deposits which they will not use themselves. True free trade, as we have seen, would abolish that.
3. From the control of railways, and the consequent power of fixing rates and making discriminations in transportation.
The power of fixing rates of transportation, and in this way of discriminating against persons and places, is a power essentially of the same nature as that exercised by governments in levying import duties. And the principle of free trade as clearly requires the removal of such restrictions as it requires the removal of import duties. But here we reach a point where positive action on the part of government is needed. Except as between terminal or "competitive" points where two or more roads meet (and as to these the tendency is, by combination or "pooling," to do away with competition), the carrying of goods and passengers by rail, like the business of telegraph, telephone, gas, water, or similar companies, is in its nature a monopoly. To prevent restrictions and discriminations, governmental control is therefore required. Such control is not only not inconsistent with the free-trade principle; it follows from it, just as the interference of government to prevent and punish assaults upon persons and property follows from the principle of individual liberty. Thus, if we carry free trade to its logical conclusions we are inevitably led to what monopolists, who wish to be "let alone" to plunder the public, denounce as "socialism," and which is, indeed, socialism, in the sense that it recognizes the true domain of social functions.
Whether businesses in their nature monopolies should be regulated by law or should be carried on by the community, is a question of method. It seems to me, however, that experience goes to show that better results can be secured, with less risk of governmental corruption, by state management than by state regulation. But the great simplification of government which would result from the abolition of the present complex and demoralizing modes of taxation would vastly increase the ease and safety with which either of these methods could be applied. The assumption by the state of all those social functions in which competition will not operate would involve nothing like the strain upon governmental powers, and would be nothing like as provocative of corruption and dishonesty, as our present method of collecting taxes. The more equal distribution of wealth that would ensue from the reform which thus simplified government, would, moreover, increase public intelligence and purify public morals, and enable us to bring a higher standard of honesty and ability to the management of public affairs. We have no right to assume that men would be as grasping and dishonest in a social state where the poorest could get an abundant living as they are in the present social state, where the fear of poverty begets insane greed.
There is another way, moreover, in which true free trade tends strongly to socialism, in the highest and best sense of the term. The taking for the use of the community of that value of privilege which attaches to the possession of land, would, wherever social development has advanced beyond a certain stage, yield revenues even larger than those now raised by taxation, while there would be an enormous reduction in public expenses consequent, directly and indirectly, upon the abolition of present modes of taxation. Thus would be provided a fund, increasing steadily with social growth, that could be applied to social purposes now neglected. And among the purposes which will suggest themselves to the reader by which the surplus income of the community could be used to increase the sum of human knowledge, the diffusion of elevating tastes, and the gratification of healthy desires, there is none more worthy than that of making honorable provision for those deprived of their natural protectors, of through no fault of their own incapacitated for the struggle of life.
We should think it sin and shame if a great steamer, dashing across the ocean, were not brought to a stop by a signal of distress from the meanest smack; at the sight of an infant lashed to a spar, the mighty ship would round to, and men would spring to launch a boat in angry seas. Thus strongly does the bond of our common humanity appeal to us when we get beyond the hum of civilized life. And yet—a miner is entombed alive, a painter falls from a scaffold, a brakeman is crushed in coupling cars, a merchant fails, falls ill and dies, and organized society leaves widow and children to bitter want or degrading alms. This ought not to be. Citizenship in a civilized community ought of itself to be insurance against such a fate. And having in mind that the income which the community ought to obtain from the land to which the growth of the community gives value is in reality not a tax but the proceeds of a just rent, an English Democrat (William Saunders, M. P.) puts in this phrase the aim of true free trade: "No taxes at all, and a pension to everybody."
This is denounced as "the rankest socialism" by those whose notion of the fitness of things is, that the descendants of royal favorites and blue-blooded thieves should be kept in luxurious idleness all their lives long, by pensions wrung from struggling industry, while the laborer and his wife, worn out by hard work, for which they have received scarce living wages, are degraded by a parish dole, or separated from each other in a "work-house."
If this is socialism, then, indeed, is it true that free trade leads to socialism.
(*)
The term "socialism" is used so loosely that it is hard to attach to it a definite meaning. I myself am classed as a socialist by those who denounce socialism, while those who profess themselves socialists declare me not to be one. For my own part I neither claim nor repudiate the name, and realizing as I do the correlative truth of both principles can no more call myself an individualist or a socialist than one who considers the forces by which the planets are held to their orbits could call himself a centrifugalist or a centripetalist. The German socialism of the school of Marx (of which the leading representative in England is Mr. H. M. Hyndman, and the best exposition in America has been given by Mr. Laurence Gronlund), seems to me a high-purposed but incoherent mixture of truth and fallacy, the defects of which may be summed up in its want of radicalism—that is to say, of going to the root.
(**)
The great source of confusion in regard to such matters arises from the failure to attach any definite meaning to terms. It must always be remembered that nothing that can be classed either as labor or as land can be accounted capital in any definite use of the term, and that much that we commonly speak of as capital—such as solvent debts, government bonds, etc—is in reality not even wealth—which all true capital must be. For a fuller elucidation of this, as of similar points, I must refer the reader to my Progress and Poverty.