tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post1007102825773624410..comments2024-03-29T10:51:27.752+13:00Comments on Not PC: Murray Rothbard was a disasterPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-21327832369044264762015-01-17T00:58:06.362+13:002015-01-17T00:58:06.362+13:00Rothbard's writings on foreign policy were a m...Rothbard's writings on foreign policy were a mixed bag. His writings on Soviet foreign policy and the Cold War may not have survived the opening of the archives in Moscow in terms of their accuracy.<br /><br />He was an excellent economist and economic historian.Jim Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02233668500637892711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-70345690506949085342014-08-07T13:10:11.301+12:002014-08-07T13:10:11.301+12:00Here's Rothbard's "Mafia Movies"...Here's Rothbard's "Mafia Movies"<br /><br />http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/mafia-movies/Glib Sparterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06373322531722302427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-76987887394218476022014-08-07T12:56:55.854+12:002014-08-07T12:56:55.854+12:00Hi Peter.
To me it looks like a clear case of you...Hi Peter.<br /><br />To me it looks like a clear case of you not having read any of these very selective quotes in the full context of what he actually was saying. I'm quite surprised and disappointed. I think this post is a bit of an own-goal.<br /><br />I'm assuming that you've never read Rothbard's "For a new Liberty", otherwise you wouldn;t have allowed yourself to take Rothbard so out of context.<br /><br />http://www.mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf<br /><br />Page 279:<br /><br />" Isolationism or peaceful coexistence is the foreign policy counterpart of severely limiting government at home. "<br /><br />You'll note that he refers to peaceful coexistance in this instance without the quotes, such as on page 298:<br /><br />" When such hopes were dashed after the end of world War I, Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks adopted the theory of “peaceful coexistence” as the basic foreign policy for a Communist State."<br /><br />and on 299:<br /><br />" This increasing conservatism under Stalin and his successors strengthened and reinforced the nonaggressive, “peaceful coexistence” policy. "<br /><br />and other pages.<br /><br />Please take the time to have another look at what Rothbard was actually saying with respect to the Russian's back then and his comment about the Mafia. I think you'll change your mind.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Glib<br /><br />This will probably be posted twice, or not all all. Having trouble posting using Firefox 31.0Glib Sparterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06373322531722302427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-66706551890237514602014-08-06T20:51:27.790+12:002014-08-06T20:51:27.790+12:00J Cuttance
I've read Suvorov. It does appear ...J Cuttance<br /><br />I've read Suvorov. It does appear that Stalin was ordering the Soviet military right up to the border in preparation for attacking Nazi held territory. The Nazis got in first and exploited the non-defensive position the Soviet military was then deployed in. Stalin appears to have been surprised by this attack as otherwise, had he expected it, surely he'd have deployed the army defensively (assuming he was a competent military leader). <br /><br />The question. Do assume Stalin was preparing to attack the Nazis. Why did Stalin intend to attack the Nazis at some point in the not too distant future? What was he thinking at that time? It is a difficult one. He did not give away much of his analysis or plans to anyone, ever. He was well known to be secretive, paranoid, obsessively concerned about retaining power and control. Did he consider he had reason not to trust the Nazis and that they were a menace to his government and to his interests? Did he understand that they were a threat to his government and to his interests (which they indeed were)? He must have done. Surely Stalin would have understood the nature of the Nazis. Surely he would have understood all the stuff about "living space" in the East and what that would mean for the future of the USSR, of his government and of him. So was he getting ready to eliminate this threat to his government, to his interests?<br /><br />Did Stalin, being a good Communist, think that elements of the Western European, Gt Britain and the USA governments and their financiers were out to destroy Communism and do in the USSR? Were he to have thought that, then preparing for war in Europe would have been reasonable and defensive. Given his strategic situation his best option may indeed have been to invade and decapitate his enemies at the opportune moment. He waited too long. <br /><br />I am not so sure that Rothbard was all completely wrong with his analysis. As with Rand, he can be made to look woefully wrong with a few selective quotations taken away from context. Seems there are those who like to do that sadly.<br /><br />Amit Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-27734890892714344652014-08-06T19:54:02.904+12:002014-08-06T19:54:02.904+12:00"Sure, they might not have due process, but y..."Sure, they might not have due process, but you want your neighbour whacked for pissing you off, then tell Don Corleone a good story -- and job done."<br /><br />Speaking of due-process, is it OK that the Pres selects people for whacking-off each week merely on the basis of being presented a kill list and asked if he'd like to sign it (and sometimes he does not even have to put pen to paper even, just verbal assent suffices)? When asked to comment about it he stated how he was good at having people whacked. <br /><br />What about the thousands of kidnappings, torturing and killings, all done in secret? What was it named- rendition? Due process? Sure there was. <br /><br />What about the secret courts in the West? You know, the ones where the accused doesn't have any access to family, friends, legal representation or in many instances even the right to appear and be heard. Those secret courts are so secret that the judges are not allowed to keep copies of any papers, even their own opinions and judgements. Due process? Sure it is. <br /><br />Compare the number of deaths caused by government over the last 100 years and then the number caused by the mafia. Funny how you have one standard for the mafia and an entirely different one for governments. One is far and away orders of magnitude worse than the other yet you give it a free pass. <br /><br />AmitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-63225888863716458702014-08-06T11:33:10.209+12:002014-08-06T11:33:10.209+12:00Agreed. Rothbard mistook apparent for real applica...Agreed. Rothbard mistook apparent for real applications of the non-aggression principle in, of all things, states, and in, of all people, communists.<br />Perhaps he was applying the "my enemy's enemy" axiom to contrast them with the U.S., which was using freedom-generated wealth to be the more successful bully.<br />The sentiment has resurfaced on some otherwise libertarian blogs with Putin-cheerleading.<br />Mises, who suffered more directly under socialist tyrannies, should have reined Rothbard in.<br /><br />It's interesting that the meme: “So unwarlike was Stalin, in fact, that Germany was almost able to conquer Russia in the face of enormous odds”, pervaded even to Rothbard.<br />Anyone who reads Suvorov's Icebreaker, its sequels and the increasing body of evidence for its thesis, realises the perverse reasons for Barbarossa's initial success. My introduction to it came from http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.co.nz/<br /><br />On a final note, I suggest that there's no shame in being a disaster when it comes to politics, because it's a lot less destructive than being a successful politician.<br /><br />J CuttanceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com