You are here:   Angela Merkel > The Frau is for Turning
 

I am not an economist, but an historian, and so I would like to illuminate both the threat and the choice by looking back to another period when Western civilisation faced a similar predicament. I would like to cite two witnesses: one for the defence of the West, the other for the prosecution. In his 1927 book Liberalismus (later translated as Liberalism in the Classical Tradition), Ludwig von Mises considered the question of whether the civilisation built on liberalism and capitalism would go the way of older cultures, as the "dilettantes" (he had in mind Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West) had been prophesying. The Spenglerian pessimists were wrong, thought Mises: 

Modern civilisation will not perish unless it does so by its own act of self-destruction. No external enemy can destroy it the way the Spaniards once destroyed the civilisation of the Aztecs, for no one on earth can match his strength against the standard-bearers of modern civilisation. Only inner enemies can threaten it. It can come to an end only if the ideas of liberalism are supplanted by an anti-liberal ideology hostile to social cooperation.

Note that Mises is not conferring a spurious immortality on Western (or, as he prefers to call it, "European") civilisation: he concedes that it could be hollowed out from within. That, of course, is precisely what happened, at least in continental Europe. Following the Crash and the subsequent Depression, the critics of capitalism and liberalism gained the ascendancy in the battle of ideas. In 1931, four years after Mises warned against the "enemy within", Ferdinand Fried published Das Ende des Kapitalismus ("The End of Capitalism"). Whereas Mises was a lone voice crying in the wilderness, even in Vienna, the marginalised capital of a defunct empire, Fried was the leading figure in an influential Berlin-based circle of nationalist intellectuals around the cutting-edge journal Die Tat ("The Deed"). Today, Mises is still read as a liberal classic, while Fried is forgotten, but at the time Fried's critique of capitalism from the radical Right was even more sensational than the more familiar one from the Left. Here is the choice that Germany faced, as Fried saw it:

On one side stands the declining "West", itself already beginning to disintegrate, and with it the entire complex of the capitalist spirit: the free market, debt, the gold standard, world trade and stock markets, international capital flows, stimulation of demand, advertising, cost price calculation, export drives — all of them about to smash themselves in the present crisis. On the other side...redistribution of wealth, debt relief, "the bondage of interest rates", doubts about gold and the present conception of money, the right to work and above all the right to life, national and ethnic solidarity, economics as self-sufficiency, the authority of the state.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
d_lon
December 18th, 2010
3:12 PM
"the market's self-correcting mechanisms have already gone a long way to restoring equilibrium. The main contribution that governments can make is to live within their means" The author to have conveniently forgotten the role of governments in retoring equilibrium by bailing out the banks.

S Fox
December 14th, 2010
7:12 PM
Very excellent article. Anonymous Nov 30, you remark that 'such universal principles can be identified without recourse to an almighty'. Perhaps so. But can they be upheld and defended with the ferocity and ardour that is necessary in a world such as this by pure reason? Please note, I am not religious. I have required fifty years of life to learn that those moral relativists you (and the author of this piece) write of are fools. Yet they are, or appear to be, highly intelligent and eloquent. Almost without exception, it now appears to me, to be a successful, sophisticated intellectual in the academic or media world means to be so wrong about what really matters as to constitute a danger to society. Fortunately, figures like Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan have arisen to defy the liberal, atheist consensus. Who can I thank if not G-d for their belief and commitment? I'm not sure where we'd be without it, but I am sure I don't want to go there.

Anonymous
December 4th, 2010
4:12 PM
If we tolerate the intolerant, we damage freedom and put it at risk, so obviously its not a contradiction.

Anonymous
November 30th, 2010
12:11 PM
What a magnificent article. Such breadth of vision and affirmation of principles that sorely need it in this nihilistic age of ours. My only objection is to the linking of 'universal values/freedoms' and belief in a deity. I happen to believe that such universal principles can be identified without recourse to an almighty - but in this context, these are quibbles. With our political, academic and media establishment either aiding and abetting Mises' enemies within, if they haven't joined that camp fully, it's a joy and relief to read an article like this one.

wam3
November 29th, 2010
5:11 PM
To "Anonymous," Nov. 26, 5:11 PM, I would respond that Western freedom generally has meant individual freedom. Thus there is not such a real contradiction between maintaining individual freedom and also keeping many Islamic practices illegal. This is because much of strict Islam severely restricts the individual--especially women and non-Muslims. And strict Islam does not allow for the separation of church and state. Sharia and individual freedom are incompatible. Also, the last sentence of Johnson's article answers your concern: "We cannot integrate those whose only purpose is the disintegration of our civilisation." Reason indicates that it is legitimate for countries such as the UK or the USA to act in self-defense, against those who would destroy the freedoms of their inhabitants.

Anonymous
November 26th, 2010
5:11 PM
It just seems fundamentally contradictory to hold freedom as a pinnacle of Western society, but then to say 'we cannot tolerate the intolerate'. The same argument can be used by the very people you criticise who are hostile to Thilo Sarrazin. I think it is obvious that Islamist Terrorism should not be tolerated in Western society, and we have laws which act to that accord. If you are speaking of people espousing general Islamic beliefs, the segregation of the sexes, arranged marriage, if these views cannot be tolerated, it seems to me that freedom is lost from Western society. However, I enjoyed the article and agree with much of what Sarrazin has to say.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.