Scan barcode
rotorguy64's review
2.0
This is a strange work. I was made aware of its existence by a critique in [b:Leftism Revisited|1632125|Leftism Revisited from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot|Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1240857230s/1632125.jpg|1626308], and in one other book by [a:Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn|394144|Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1297611194p2/394144.jpg], although I'm not sure which one it was. I decided to check it out for myself, and as it turns out, the book almost couldn't be more obscure. No reviews on Amazon, Google Books, it's hard to find on search engines unless you type in the entire name, and until I added it, it wasn't even on Goodreads. This, despite the importance that The City of Man attaches to itself, as a work written by a committee of fifteen distinguished scholars that may transform the world and help bring about a democratic world government. High ambitions and high praise, but the book delivered little of it. It lacks self-awareness, is filled with factual errors, and really isn't that creative or inspired either. I'm not sure if it had a certain influence despite its obscurity, or if it has just moved to the tune to the Zeitgeist so that it merely seemed prophetic. What I also don't know is who really came up wiht the ideas inside it. Some scholars dropped out of the creative process, and at least [a:Reinhold Niebuhr|31146|Reinhold Niebuhr|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1274203781p2/31146.jpg], in a letter to Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, disavowed the work and regretted putting his signature under it, the implication being that he didn't read it properly at all before signing it.
But now to what's actually written inside it: I would call this work nothing less than a blueprint for a world government. In this regard, it stands in the traditions of the major political treatises. It starts off quite well, if not extraordinary in any regard, with an attack on moral relativism and conformism, and on totalitarianism and fascism. These pages, the first ten or twenty maybe, are good, and the main reason why I didn't rate the book with one star. After that, it goes downhill.
The problems start with the conception of freedom. The term is never defined at all. It is quite clear that it's supposed to be only a relative, not an absolute value. The authors cry out to Heaven against the injustice of economic freedom, and they don't seem particularly fond of religious communities or ideologies that aren't fans of democracy. What freedom are we left with, then? No freedom that threatens the foundation of democracy, and presumably none that threaten the plans of the world government, either. Classical liberalism with its negative conception of rights is heavily criticized, as is its focus on rights and not on duties. In fact, a "Bill of Duties" is proposed, to supplement the "Bill of Rights". Don't we already have civilian duties? What do these duties need a constitutional back-up for, when they are already included in the statutory law and implied in the fact that the government has powers granted to it in the constitution? I really don't think the government with its massive apparatus for coercion needs another constitutional safeguard to assert its own "rights" against entitled citizens. All in all, The City of Man seems to stand squarely in the tradition of [a:Rousseau|7994|Jean-Jacques Rousseau|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1182863711p2/7994.jpg], in that freedom is primarily seen as freedom within the state, through the state. At least that's the vibe I got.
Just as troubling is the view on religion. Not just that, it seems paradoxical, until that paradox is solved near the end of the book. On the one hand, heavy use is made of religious language and God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are invoked more than once. On the other, secularism is praised, and there are vague allusions to democracy becoming the new world religion, until - at the end - it becomes clear that the religious creeds only deserve to exist insofar as they back the democratic creed, or at least are indifferent to it. It strongly reminded me of the "Religion of Humanity" as envisioned by positivists like [a:Auguste Comte|5428890|Auguste Comte|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1391988401p2/5428890.jpg], and other secular religions. As you'd probably expect from a work that espoused such views, there is absolutely no understanding of actual religion. The Reformation is lauded as a movement to free the individual from the clutches of the Church, when it was initially a counter-movement against the Renaissance. This is obvious in the case of Calvin, but Luther was not "progressive" in the least, either. He explicitly invoked the divine rights of king and lords, consequently spoke out against the right to resist against them, he ordered the burnings of Synagogues and wanted to remove all pagan influences from the Church. The aforementioned Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who studied twenty of Luthers eighty volumes, characterized him as a reactionary, an authoritarian, and a misanthrope. Granted, the reformation later did create more freethinking movements, but The City of Man explicitly invokes the early movements. No less naive are the views on the Roman Catholic Church, whose cooperation with "Fascism" is criticized. In the case of cooperation with Nazi Germany, this is not substantiated and in fact contradicted by later comments in the book, and by actual historical events, like the encyclica "Mit Brennender Sorge" or the oppression of Catholic priests. Spanish "fascism", meanwhile, is not even indisputably fascist. Franco supported Hitler, yes, but he was less than enthusiastic about it. He also wasn't as bad as Hitler or Mussolini, and didn't seem to be all that influenced by them. It's true that the Church supported him, as the book claims, but it's also true that he cracked down on the leftists that desecrated churches, killed priests and raped nuns. Of course the Roman Catholic Church would support him under these circumstances! Finally, the Lateran Treaty is mentioned and portrayed as proof that Mussolini and the Church cooperated. If you read the Treaty, you'll see that it's mostly the Church securing its position against the fascists in return for neutrality. You can think of that what you want, but it certainly isn't as crystal-clear as the book makes it out to be, not when you remember that the Italian Fascists were not at all fans of the Roman Catholic Church (Mussolini spoke very highly of [a:Jan Hus|114086|Jan Hus|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1314374547p2/114086.jpg] and used to be an orthodox Marxist).
(Speaking of cooperation and betrayal: While the conquest of France is condemned, the invasion of Poland, which was far more brutal, is mostly glossed over. It is mentioned, sure, but only in passing. In fact, the book is quite vague on the crimes of Hitler and his allies, even more so on the crimes of Stalin.)
The economic program of the book is more philosophical than the rest of it, which is quite funny, as economics is a science. The program, if it deserves that name, is a clichéd middle-of-the-road proposal, neither socialist nor capitalist, but it's obvious that the sympathies of the writers lay with socialism. Socialism, they claim, is a great and just system, but sadly incompatible with human nature. Their words on capitalism are less kind. They even equate it with the Nazis, who are "rugged individualists" that oppress their conquered territories with laissez-faire policies. No, I'm not making it up. It's on page 51 of this book. The Nazis, who confiscated property, controlled all major industries, and set all kinds of quotas, are capitalists at heart, but follow only a "degenerate socialism". Their botched capitalist policies which no one in his right mind would call laissez-faire are seen as signs of a sincere belief in capitalism, while their socialist policies and socialist rhetoric (for example in [b:The Nazi-Sozi|6083793|The Nazi-Sozi Questions & Answers for National Socialists|Joseph Goebbels|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1274401553s/6083793.jpg|6260570]) are supposed to be lipservice, manipulation of the masses and them just not getting socialism. Am I the only one who sees a double standard there? And how "rugged individiualism" is supposed to lie in policies like Gleichschaltung (translation: equalization), organizations like the Hitler Youth, and a philosophy postulating that honor is equivalent to obedience and servitude, is a mystery to me. If I saw a perfectly symmetric parade of soldiers walking with one rhythm, the last thing I'd think was that these must be individualists. I doubt anyone would. Despite the fact that economics take up so much space in this book, the discussion is mostly accusatory, sometimes philosophical, but never scientific, and almost never concrete enough to be executed in practice. The insight of [a:Ludwig von Mises|46766|Ludwig von Mises|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1209485450p2/46766.jpg], that there is no middle-of-the-road approach, that every interventionism must logically (if not actually in practice) conclude in communism, renders it particularly cringeworthy. I could excuse that with the age of the book (written before [b:Human Action|81912|Human Action A Treatise on Economics|Ludwig von Mises|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328775326s/81912.jpg|1747054], but not when there's not a hint of economic understanding.
Another topic that this book is big about is imperialism. This charge is deflected by the writers, but I'm not buying it for a second. That America is on a holy mission to save Europe from destruction is repeatedly stressed. Not just that, America also contains the "treasure and essence of all human cultures". But of course, none of this is imperialist, because America just wants the best for the rest of the world! (Which, incidentally, is one of the most imperialist things I've ever heard in my entire life). When writing a blueprint for a world government, maybe next time you shouldn't invite a "majority" of American and a "minority" of European thinkers (page 103)?
Now, to the last issue: Democracy. The world should be a federation of democracies, united under a democratic world government. This is the main focus of the book, and it's also not very interesting. The primary arguments for this setup seem to be that democracy ensures freedom and human dignity, and that it will end all wars. The latter is not really substantiated. The obvious possibility of a larger state declaring war on a smaller territory seeking independence, or even just a change of policy or leadership, is overlooked, even though that happened in the Civil War, the War of Independence, many times in the USSR, during the Bangladesh Liberation War, and so on. Concerning the former, there is also no real support. I see this thesis, that democracy is inherently superior to all other forms of government including monarchy and aristocracy, as refuted by authors such as [a:Hans-Hermann Hoppe|98317|Hans-Hermann Hoppe|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1210864830p2/98317.jpg] and, once again, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. At least the historical record used by the latter was also available to the "Committee of Fifteen". I should also point out that other authors, most notably [a:Rudolph J. Rummel|16274283|Rudolph J. Rummel|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png], have also written passionate defenses of democracy that were much, much better, even if they were wrong.
One more curiosity before I conclude this review: They somehow criticized Hitler in one of these rare moments when Hitler was right. See for yourself:
That's what Hitler said, and it's an abomination, or so The City of Man would have us believe. Knowing Hitler, he no doubt used this comment in the context of doing away with constitutional safeguards, but by itself, it's not problematic at all. That spontaneous social forces cannot be tamed with legalism is a very true and very keen insight, one that I'm surprised Hitler formulated (by accident?). What doesn't surprise me, after all that I have said, is that The City of Man has no use for it. What place is there for initiative outside of the ballot box in a world with one government that plans economic and religious life and demands absolute obedience?
But now to what's actually written inside it: I would call this work nothing less than a blueprint for a world government. In this regard, it stands in the traditions of the major political treatises. It starts off quite well, if not extraordinary in any regard, with an attack on moral relativism and conformism, and on totalitarianism and fascism. These pages, the first ten or twenty maybe, are good, and the main reason why I didn't rate the book with one star. After that, it goes downhill.
The problems start with the conception of freedom. The term is never defined at all. It is quite clear that it's supposed to be only a relative, not an absolute value. The authors cry out to Heaven against the injustice of economic freedom, and they don't seem particularly fond of religious communities or ideologies that aren't fans of democracy. What freedom are we left with, then? No freedom that threatens the foundation of democracy, and presumably none that threaten the plans of the world government, either. Classical liberalism with its negative conception of rights is heavily criticized, as is its focus on rights and not on duties. In fact, a "Bill of Duties" is proposed, to supplement the "Bill of Rights". Don't we already have civilian duties? What do these duties need a constitutional back-up for, when they are already included in the statutory law and implied in the fact that the government has powers granted to it in the constitution? I really don't think the government with its massive apparatus for coercion needs another constitutional safeguard to assert its own "rights" against entitled citizens. All in all, The City of Man seems to stand squarely in the tradition of [a:Rousseau|7994|Jean-Jacques Rousseau|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1182863711p2/7994.jpg], in that freedom is primarily seen as freedom within the state, through the state. At least that's the vibe I got.
Just as troubling is the view on religion. Not just that, it seems paradoxical, until that paradox is solved near the end of the book. On the one hand, heavy use is made of religious language and God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are invoked more than once. On the other, secularism is praised, and there are vague allusions to democracy becoming the new world religion, until - at the end - it becomes clear that the religious creeds only deserve to exist insofar as they back the democratic creed, or at least are indifferent to it. It strongly reminded me of the "Religion of Humanity" as envisioned by positivists like [a:Auguste Comte|5428890|Auguste Comte|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1391988401p2/5428890.jpg], and other secular religions. As you'd probably expect from a work that espoused such views, there is absolutely no understanding of actual religion. The Reformation is lauded as a movement to free the individual from the clutches of the Church, when it was initially a counter-movement against the Renaissance. This is obvious in the case of Calvin, but Luther was not "progressive" in the least, either. He explicitly invoked the divine rights of king and lords, consequently spoke out against the right to resist against them, he ordered the burnings of Synagogues and wanted to remove all pagan influences from the Church. The aforementioned Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who studied twenty of Luthers eighty volumes, characterized him as a reactionary, an authoritarian, and a misanthrope. Granted, the reformation later did create more freethinking movements, but The City of Man explicitly invokes the early movements. No less naive are the views on the Roman Catholic Church, whose cooperation with "Fascism" is criticized. In the case of cooperation with Nazi Germany, this is not substantiated and in fact contradicted by later comments in the book, and by actual historical events, like the encyclica "Mit Brennender Sorge" or the oppression of Catholic priests. Spanish "fascism", meanwhile, is not even indisputably fascist. Franco supported Hitler, yes, but he was less than enthusiastic about it. He also wasn't as bad as Hitler or Mussolini, and didn't seem to be all that influenced by them. It's true that the Church supported him, as the book claims, but it's also true that he cracked down on the leftists that desecrated churches, killed priests and raped nuns. Of course the Roman Catholic Church would support him under these circumstances! Finally, the Lateran Treaty is mentioned and portrayed as proof that Mussolini and the Church cooperated. If you read the Treaty, you'll see that it's mostly the Church securing its position against the fascists in return for neutrality. You can think of that what you want, but it certainly isn't as crystal-clear as the book makes it out to be, not when you remember that the Italian Fascists were not at all fans of the Roman Catholic Church (Mussolini spoke very highly of [a:Jan Hus|114086|Jan Hus|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1314374547p2/114086.jpg] and used to be an orthodox Marxist).
(Speaking of cooperation and betrayal: While the conquest of France is condemned, the invasion of Poland, which was far more brutal, is mostly glossed over. It is mentioned, sure, but only in passing. In fact, the book is quite vague on the crimes of Hitler and his allies, even more so on the crimes of Stalin.)
The economic program of the book is more philosophical than the rest of it, which is quite funny, as economics is a science. The program, if it deserves that name, is a clichéd middle-of-the-road proposal, neither socialist nor capitalist, but it's obvious that the sympathies of the writers lay with socialism. Socialism, they claim, is a great and just system, but sadly incompatible with human nature. Their words on capitalism are less kind. They even equate it with the Nazis, who are "rugged individualists" that oppress their conquered territories with laissez-faire policies. No, I'm not making it up. It's on page 51 of this book. The Nazis, who confiscated property, controlled all major industries, and set all kinds of quotas, are capitalists at heart, but follow only a "degenerate socialism". Their botched capitalist policies which no one in his right mind would call laissez-faire are seen as signs of a sincere belief in capitalism, while their socialist policies and socialist rhetoric (for example in [b:The Nazi-Sozi|6083793|The Nazi-Sozi Questions & Answers for National Socialists|Joseph Goebbels|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1274401553s/6083793.jpg|6260570]) are supposed to be lipservice, manipulation of the masses and them just not getting socialism. Am I the only one who sees a double standard there? And how "rugged individiualism" is supposed to lie in policies like Gleichschaltung (translation: equalization), organizations like the Hitler Youth, and a philosophy postulating that honor is equivalent to obedience and servitude, is a mystery to me. If I saw a perfectly symmetric parade of soldiers walking with one rhythm, the last thing I'd think was that these must be individualists. I doubt anyone would. Despite the fact that economics take up so much space in this book, the discussion is mostly accusatory, sometimes philosophical, but never scientific, and almost never concrete enough to be executed in practice. The insight of [a:Ludwig von Mises|46766|Ludwig von Mises|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1209485450p2/46766.jpg], that there is no middle-of-the-road approach, that every interventionism must logically (if not actually in practice) conclude in communism, renders it particularly cringeworthy. I could excuse that with the age of the book (written before [b:Human Action|81912|Human Action A Treatise on Economics|Ludwig von Mises|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328775326s/81912.jpg|1747054], but not when there's not a hint of economic understanding.
Another topic that this book is big about is imperialism. This charge is deflected by the writers, but I'm not buying it for a second. That America is on a holy mission to save Europe from destruction is repeatedly stressed. Not just that, America also contains the "treasure and essence of all human cultures". But of course, none of this is imperialist, because America just wants the best for the rest of the world! (Which, incidentally, is one of the most imperialist things I've ever heard in my entire life). When writing a blueprint for a world government, maybe next time you shouldn't invite a "majority" of American and a "minority" of European thinkers (page 103)?
Now, to the last issue: Democracy. The world should be a federation of democracies, united under a democratic world government. This is the main focus of the book, and it's also not very interesting. The primary arguments for this setup seem to be that democracy ensures freedom and human dignity, and that it will end all wars. The latter is not really substantiated. The obvious possibility of a larger state declaring war on a smaller territory seeking independence, or even just a change of policy or leadership, is overlooked, even though that happened in the Civil War, the War of Independence, many times in the USSR, during the Bangladesh Liberation War, and so on. Concerning the former, there is also no real support. I see this thesis, that democracy is inherently superior to all other forms of government including monarchy and aristocracy, as refuted by authors such as [a:Hans-Hermann Hoppe|98317|Hans-Hermann Hoppe|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1210864830p2/98317.jpg] and, once again, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. At least the historical record used by the latter was also available to the "Committee of Fifteen". I should also point out that other authors, most notably [a:Rudolph J. Rummel|16274283|Rudolph J. Rummel|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png], have also written passionate defenses of democracy that were much, much better, even if they were wrong.
One more curiosity before I conclude this review: They somehow criticized Hitler in one of these rare moments when Hitler was right. See for yourself:
Constitutions can only conclude real developments; they can never precede them. Artificial construction violates life.
That's what Hitler said, and it's an abomination, or so The City of Man would have us believe. Knowing Hitler, he no doubt used this comment in the context of doing away with constitutional safeguards, but by itself, it's not problematic at all. That spontaneous social forces cannot be tamed with legalism is a very true and very keen insight, one that I'm surprised Hitler formulated (by accident?). What doesn't surprise me, after all that I have said, is that The City of Man has no use for it. What place is there for initiative outside of the ballot box in a world with one government that plans economic and religious life and demands absolute obedience?
More...