Philosophy Doesn't Make a Tyrant

FROM THE ARCHVES (Daily Nebraskan columns)

Philosophy doesn't make a tyrant

Jeremy Patrick (jhaeman@hotmail.com)

The Daily Nebraskan
March 19, 2001

"An idea isn't responsible for the people who believe in it."
--Don Marquis, New York Sun

Ideas are funny things because our brains work in funny ways. Our minds have several strange habits, such as forgetting things that are terribly important while highlighting the utterly banal. Sometimes our memories conflate two very different ideas, such as when we meet a woman for the first time when she's wearing a yellow dress, and for years after, whenever we think of her, we picture her wearing that same yellow dress.
History, or at least our memory of it, works along the same lines: We forget some things, remember others and conflate ideas that don't necessarily belong together. A perfect example of this latter phenomenon is the widespread belief that communism (or socialism) causes tyranny, while capitalism is all that is necessary for democracy and freedom to flourish.
When Americans think of communism, they almost invariably think of Stalin, "Iron Curtains," Gulags and the KGB. This view - that a country's economic system is inextricably linked to its political system - was shared by America's most famous libertarian economist, Milton Friedman.
In his classic text, "Capitalism and Freedom," Friedman argued that "a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom ... [because] economic freedom is ... an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom." (p. 8) By casting his argument in such a way, Friedman leaves himself open to a powerful criticism: The facts simply speak otherwise.
If we define what we mean by "political freedom" - such as a robust respect for human rights and free and full participation in democratic government - it quickly becomes apparent that several countries with comparatively little economic freedom offer a much stronger array of political freedom than a capitalist stalwart like the United States.
Countries like the Netherlands and Sweden, or even England and Canada, have economic systems much more socialist than our own, but every civil rights advocate looks towards Western Europe as a model of social freedom the United States should aspire to.
In almost all areas, such as GLBT rights, reproductive freedoms, abolishment of the death penalty and treatment of drug offenses, these countries fare far better than the United States.
On the other hand, Friedman himself was directly involved with a country with a rigorous degree of economic libertarianism and drastic human rights abuses. In 1973, after almost 150 years of civilian democratic rule, the government of Chile was overthrown by right-wing military dictator Augusto Pinochet. Shortly after coming to power, the Caravan of Death, a military group operating under Pinochet's name, toured detention centers across the country and summarily executed perceived opponents of the new regime. The curtailment of political freedoms and condonation of human rights abuses continued throughout Pinochet's long reign. (He is currently under indictment by various countries for his crimes.)
Who were Pinochet's economic advisors during this period? Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys, Chilean economists who studied under him at the University of Chicago. For all of the libertarian economic policies Pinochet instituted, political freedom was nowhere to be found.
Ironically, the democratically elected president of Chile he assassinated was a socialist.
A similar comparison can be made in our own country. From the New Deal to today, America has drastically increased its economic regulation. But can it be honestly said that our civil rights and political freedoms have decreased during this period? If you ask most minority groups, the answer would clearly be no, but this is what Friedman's thesis logically entails.
The fact that a bloodthirsty dictator used Friedman's ideas does not necessarily make them wrong. The question must always be whether the actions carried out can be logically linked to the ideas held. The Inquisition invoked Jesus and the Nazis invoked Nietzsche, but neither man could be held fairly responsible for the evils done in their name.
Similarly then, to attribute the evils of Stalin to the ideas of Marx is also irrational. As scholar David McLellan said: "After the success of the 1917 Revolution the ever-growing power of Stalin entailed the formulation of Communist doctrine as far removed from Marx as were the decisions of the Council of Trent from the New Testament." This is further borne out by the fact that many people who believed in Marx's ideas used democratic means to further their cause. The United States' Socialist Party, for example, succeeded in electing 56 mayors and one congressman and received almost one million votes in the presidential election of 1912.
However, the fact that economic systems and political systems are not invariably linked does not mean that they are not important. As Keynes said: "The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."
We must be aware of these ideas - and the sometimes subtle differences between them - if we are to have any hope of choosing the best form of government, both economically and politically.