The
following was published in the web magazine Intellectual Capital in April
of 2000.
INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
Jerry Pournelle
Intellectual Capital April 12, 2000
Lessons
The Twentieth Century was/is instructive, and we will be examining
lessons learned for a good part of this ambiguous year that is not quite
part of the last Millennium nor yet part of the next. Some of the lessons
were foreseen, although like Cassandra our prophets spoke truth but were
not believed. Other lessons are only now emerging.
You can characterize the Twentieth Century in many ways, which is to
say there are many lenses through which we can look at history. Choosing
one and only one is always as great a mistake as to ignore an important
view. Any one view is certainly wrong in some to many particulars, but we
can learn from all of them. Marx and Freud had much to teach, but choosing
either as one's master is folly.
One observer not much remembered now is the Spanish philosopher Jose
Ortega y Gasset, whose best remembered book, The Revolt of the Masses, is
still very much worth reading, although it is seldom read. The title is as
good a one-line summary of the Twentieth Century as any: a century in
which the XVIIIth Century notion of individualism - the notion, as Ortega
puts it that "every human being, by the mere fact of birth, and
without requiring any special qualification whatsoever, possessed certain
fundamental political rights … and these rights, common to all, are the
only ones that exist." These notions kicked around in the XIXth
century, but it was only in the last half of the XXth that they came into
their own. Now everyone believes this or purports to. The consequences are
grave. Some would say terrible.
A few are obvious. When I was young, it was uncommon to put citizens
accused but not convicted of crimes in chains. Only if an accused proved
to be unruly was he handcuffed, and only if especially unruly was he put
in full chains. Now we see elderly ladies led into the courtroom in
handcuffs, leg irons, waist chains, looking for all the world like Jean
Valjean being led to the galleys. When the absurdity is pointed out, we
are told that because some people are unruly and violent and cannot be
controlled even with handcuffs, equality demands that we do it with all.
Even traffic stops often result in citizens with no criminal record and
accused of no more than unpaid traffic tickets being taken to the
stationhouse in handcuffs. We have learned the lesson: if you treat
everyone equally, then you must treat everyone as the worst possible
villain. To retain civilized equality we must give up civilization, or at
least civility.
Ortega thought the fundamental danger of the Century was the supremacy
of the State over Society. Mussolini's Fascism was a mere extension of the
notion of liberal democracy that all social problems are amenable to
action by the State, with the result that "Can we help feeling that
under the rule of the masses the State will endeavor to crush the
independence of the individual and the group, and thus definitely spoil
the harvest of the future?" Certainly David Koresh and his followers
in Waco would have understood that.
On the other hand, Ortega was wrong in one particular. He believed that
the old fashioned kind of dictatorship was impossible: one could not rule
by Janissaries or Mamelukes if only because the dictator needed the
approval of his security apparatus: if you will rule through a gang of
thugs you must retain the loyalty of the thugs. That has been proven wrong
again and again. After Stalin died there was not a Stalinist left in the
leadership of the USSR (although there were plenty among the faculty of
American universities). Modern methods of social control are quite
efficient. Rome endured centuries of civil war as Legion after Legion
revolted to raise their commander to the purple. Nothing like that
happened in the USSR so long as it endured: and nothing like that has
happened in Cuba. Castro rules supreme and can still make mischief as he
will, the suffering and privation of his people notwithstanding.
And that is another important lesson for dictators taught by the last
Century: if you are a dictator, never let go. Hang on to the last.
Contrast the declining years of Augustin Pinochet and Fidel Castro if you
want a dramatic illustration.
Of course that advice may be easier to give than to take. Talleyrand
once stood with Napoleon at a troop review. Napoleon said "See the
bayonets of my men!" To which Talleyrand replied "You can do
anything with bayonets, sire, except sit upon them." Ruling is a
matter of the firm seat as well as the iron hand. Once again the Twentieth
Century teaches a stark lesson for dictators: If you want to remain in
power, get nuclear weapons. You do not need many, but you must have some.
It used to be that you didn't need any of your own: a firm alliance with a
power that had them would do. Both the US and the USSR protected unsavory
regimes with their nuclear umbrellas. Now the USSR's umbrella does not
extend so far (although quite far enough to give them a free hand in
Chechnya and the various Russian Turkestans). Now you need your own nukes
to be safe.
There are other ways. The rulers of Haiti have managed without nukes,
largely because they threaten the US with their own total collapse:
without some kind of regime in Haiti the seas would be filled with leaky
boats as the people of Haiti flee toward the United States. At the cost of
American Janissaries to prop up the failing regime, we avoid all that. One
suspects there are those who wish we could do the same with Mexico:
install and prop up a regime that would close the border from the other
side.
But while one may remain in power through Janissaries and the ability
to annoy the United States, this is not anywhere near as safe as having
nuclear weapons. Milosovich learned that the hard way: if he had nukes we
would never have bombed his country. Pakistan and India may practice
ethnic cleansing all they wish: they have nukes. We've already mentioned
Chechnya. And Saddam Hussein knows this lesson well. One suspects it's
pretty clear to everyone in the Middle East, and after the Kossovo
Bombardment (hardly worth dignifying it as a war), it should be clear to
everyone.
And on the Home Front
Our final lesson for today is domestic, and it too grows out of
principles Ortega expounded: you must not ignore the State in a mass
society. Individual rights are not real unless bought with hard coin. Bill
Gates has found that out.
Gates once served as a Congressional page. He was from a family long
associated with the Democratic Party. His mother was appointed to the
University of Washington Board of Regents by a Democratic governor, and
Gates always made (modest) donations to that party. His view of the world
was made in a very different time: he thought politics irrelevant to
building a business. Now he knows better.
Does anyone imagine that the US government would have gone through the
machinations it did, transferring jurisdiction and files from the Federal
Trade Commission to the Department of Justice, recruiting Microsoft's
commercial rivals as participants in a government case against Microsoft,
if Gates had donated a billion dollars to the current regime? If he had
bought his nights in the Lincoln Bedroom? Had made his large Washington
office not a sales office, but a "public relations" office,
complete with "information sessions" with free food and liquor
for Congressional and White House Staff? Had, in a word, paid the bribes
to become part of Gore-Tech? In fact we all know it wouldn't have taken a
billion. A hundred million would have been enough, and look what that
investment would have returned! Gates personally lost billions in an hour
after Penfield Jackson's decision. So did most of America through decline
in the value of their pension funds as the NASDAQ nosedived.
So, as the politicians prattle about "campaign reform", the
government has made it very clear: Ignore Imperial Washington at your
peril. If you do, we will punish you.
Ortega y Gasset would not have been surprised. Neither would the
historians of the Roman Empire. After Marcus Aurelius came Septimius
Severus, whose advice to his children on how to remain in power was
"Stay together, pay the soldiers, and take no heed for the
rest." In our case the soldiers wear three piece suits and carry
briefcases, but they command armed troops. For details look up
"Waco".
There are many more lessons to be learned from the Twentieth Century,
but those will do for a start.
- 30 - |