Are the Kochs evil?...No! But they say a lot about the Libertarian Movement.

Just over a month ago Charles Koch wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Here one of the worlds most recognised businessmen outlined his vision for a better society (Link to editorial:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286). The Koch brothers (David & Charles) and their involvement in politics makes them some of the most controversial figures in contemporary America. For many, the Kochs are the very face of Libertarianism. They are present in scores of Libertarian think-tanks and foundations, spend vast amounts of money backing Libertarian policies and champion the debate against man made climate change. However the truth about the Koch's relation to the Libertarian movement is more complex than this. There are those on the left who decry the Kochs and their views. Pam Martens, writing in Counterpunch magazine explains how, 'A review of documents and tax records for the dizzying, interconnected web of corporate front groups, frequently created, supported and influenced by Charles or David Koch, shows just how dangerous these groups espousing free markets and liberty have become to a free society. 'The game plan is to devalue the rights of actual citizens by seeking human voices dangling from a corporate marionette string, that might be willing for the right amount of cash incentive to broadcast the Orwellian reverse-speak: liberty means more liberty for corporations'- Pam Martens. Yet for many within the Libertarian movement the issue of the Kochtopus is benign, Tibor Machan wrote of the Koch brothers. 'Now it is true that even some libertarian economists are reductionists and hold that everything someone does comes from the belief that it will promote one’s economic advantages. On this score Marxists and some free market theorists see eye to eye. But whatever the source of the idea, it is bunk. Most of us haven’t much of a clue about whether holding certain beliefs will advance our prosperity.'- Tibor Machan. Here Machan highlights an important point, unlike the left, it is unfair to dismiss the Kochs as inherently 'evil'. Truth cannot be reduced to a technical morass of neatly fitting coincidences and connections. This purpose of this article is not to establish any objective 'truth' about the Koch brothers, but to make sense of the interpretations and assess the effects these have on the Libertarian movement as a whole.
The presence of the Koch brothers in politics is clearly a divisive issue. However in reality the role of the Kochs involvement in American politics transcends the traditional left- right paradigm. A thorough assessment of the story of the Koch brothers forces us to confront important aspects of our movement. Our relation to the current political system, internecine divisions and ultimately how history will judge us. In the past few decades the libertarian movement has grown exponentially. Essentially any attempt by me (or anyone) to 'define' Libertarian ideology is bound to be controversial.  Yet it is amazing to see an expansive and varied coalition of freedom loving individuals coming together under the same banner.

'Now, accepting that you want more people to be freedom-lovers, the questions become: Which do you care more about? How people arrive? Or that they arrive at all? If you care only about the former, you might be a one-trick pony. That is, your only approach to persuasion might be to tell people to read Human Action. And there is nothing wrong with that approach, per se. I’ve suggested Mises to many. But I also realize that a lot of people might not be willing to take such a long detour through Vienna to get to our picnic—and that’s assuming they’re curious about our ideas at all. That means it may be time to expand outward from single starting points. Your liberalism or mine works great when we can agree on a starting point. But we must first acknowledge that people don’t always start from the same point- The Freeman

Yet for the movement to last the test of time, it is essential that it is able to self-evaluate and come to terms with itself. It is for this reason why the Koch brothers matter. Ultimately they are a powerful force and need to be understood. Although virtually all of the activities of the Kochs are restricted to the USA; Coming to terms with the Kochtopus will be of great help to the UK movement.
Firstly this article will address a brief history of the Libertarian movement in the USA and outline divisions and debates that the Kochs are central to. Secondly the facts about the Koch's political activities will be outlined and analysed. Lastly, this essay will look at the wide ranging implications of the Koch brothers' relation to the Libertarian movement.

Kochs, Cato and Capitalism: A brief history of the Kochtopus

It is essential that we are aware of the history of the Koch Brothers' involvement in the Libertarian movement to fully understand the controversies it creates today. It might be worth noting here that inevitably many will find this 'history' unsatisfactory. Names unmentioned, events passed by and ideas undiscussed. However in the interest of pertinence, this article will focus only on issues directly relevant to the Koch brothers and their political activities.
It is often understood the Kochs founded the Cato Institute, arguably the most recognised and respected free-market organisation in the world. However this is wrong, the Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Charles Koch, Edward Crane and Murray Rothbard. According to David Gordon, a senior fellow at the Mises Institute Cato was originally a platform to disseminate Rothbard's views to a wider audience. Interestingly it was Rothbard that came up with the term Cato Institute. Yet it wasn't long before the union went sour, David Koch & Ed Crane (Libertarian Party chairman from 1974-1977) clashed with Rothbard over the direction of the Cato Institute. Rothbard said of Crane:

'Consider for a moment: surely you must know in your heart that your Boss [Crane] has contempt for you just as he has for the entire human race…. I don’t care if your Boss is backed by a billion dollars. The Libertarian movement and the Libertarian party are not a corporation or a military machine. They are not for sale…. Crane is not smart enough to even try to mask his contempt for his fellow libertarians and LP members, so people cotton to him very quickly. How can a person like that succeed in politics?'- David Gordon, Mises Institute

Since then the Mises Institute (Founded 1982 between Rothbard and Lew Rockwell) has held the Kochs and the Cato institute as rivals. According to Rockwell, attempts have been made by the Kochs to stamp out Rothbard and the Mises Institute. ‘As he [Rockwell] recalls the conversation, Koch told him: "'Do you realize how much money we have spent purging Mises from Austrian economics? Everyone hates him'-Daily Bell. However the marriage between David Koch and Ed Crane didn't last long either, by the mid- 80s the Koch brothers had virtually nothing to do with the Cato Institute. This point was highlighted in a recent interview with Cato Institute chairman Robert Levy, he highlighted that throughout the 1980s and 1990s the Kochs had virtually nothing to do with Cato. 'Since Cato was formed, the Kochs have donated about $30 million, officials said, but the bulk came in its first decade; by last year [2011], the Kochs gave no money at all'- SLATE. This is revealing considering that the Koch borthers gave the Tea-Party a buget of $40 million for 2010 alone and have since given $400 million to support candidates in the 2012 presidential election.

In the past decade the Kochs have built up a huge web of influence that can justifiably be called the 'Kochtopus'. Numerous foundations and think-tanks have been embellished with Koch money. The Mercatus Centre, the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, the Tea-Party and Americans for Prosperity are a handful of the 34 organisations that are affiliated with the Kochs. This lamentable history of division within the Libertarian movement is significant, because it will help us fully appreciate that this is more than just a Left- Right issue, it creates conflict within the movement as well. It will also help us to change the free-society cause from a church of ideas to a truly potent political force.

'Beltway Libertarians?'

For us in the UK, the byzantine workings of Washington D.C may seem a million miles away. Yet these issues matter immensely to us. As the Libertarian movement grows in the UK it will become increasingly important to understand the difficulties involved in turning ideology into genuine political force. The relationship between the Koch brothers-the American Libertarian movement and Washington D.C should be of great interest to us in the UK. Lew Rockwell described the Koch's as 'Beltway Libertarians'. The Beltway being the motor-way that circles Washington D.C., Rockwell suggests that the Kochs are part of the corrupt American political establishment, rather than being genuinely committed to the free-society cause. On the other hand, it is important to note that ideological purity is not the single measure of how successful a political movement will be. Yet the Kochs connection to Capitol Hill matters, not because their presence there is a sin. But as a result of recent efforts to spread their influence (which already made many uncomfortable), the movement could look increasingly fragile and able to be co-opted by existing political powers.
Ultimately, the Kochs exists as a governmental force not a revolutionary one. As a result of the immense influence of the Koch Brothers, their presence in the Libertarian movement is controversial. This point is perfectly displayed when we look at the recent Koch activity within the Cato Institute. As has been mentioned previously despite initial involvement with Cato, since the mid-80s the Kochs had largely left the organisation to its own devices. However that all changed in 2011 when the long-term chairman of the Cato Institute William Niskansen passed away. By this time the Koch's where already a potent force in American politics 'The rift has its roots, Cato officials said, in a long-simmering feud over efforts by Mr. Koch and his brother David Koch to install their own people on the institute’s 16-member board and to establish a more direct pipeline between Cato and the family’s Republican political outlets'-New York Times. Arguably these concerns where justified, as soon after Charles Koch (the most politically involved of the two brothers) pushed for a greater presence in the organisation he soon began trying to install his own candidates including Tony Woodlief a man who had historically been cynical about most Libertarian ideas and John Hinderacker who supported the Iraq war in the early 2000s. 'Cato is the gold standard of libertarian organizations around the world,” wrote [Ed] Crane. “We are respected and admired for our commitment to libertarian principles, integrity, independence and non-partisanship. That respect encompasses traditional liberals and conservatives. That would all end with a Koch takeover, despite Charles Koch's protestations to the contrary.'-SLATE. Robert Levy said in an interview in 2012 that he had concerns over:

'Weather Cato can successfully function if it's being perceived as a partisan or an aligned or an arm of a special interest. Our argument is that Cato must be non-aligned, non-partisan and strictly independent of all special interests and so the stockholder structure in and of itself is a problem for the Cato institute. Because even if it does not compromise our independence. It could be perceived as compromising our independence. We would be perceived as a mouthpiece for special interests. And we cannot function effectively if we are perceived in that manner' – Robert Levy

Since the interview, Ed Crane has stepped down from the Cato Institute. Clearly the presence of the Koch brothers is significant due to their Washington relationships and huge financial power, no matter where you stand in the wider political nexus.
It is important at this stage to examine the broad reach of the Koch brothers into the heart of the American political establishment. Their connection to the Tea-Party is well known, large part of the wider Americans for prosperity programme.  Koch Industries and its subsidiaries spent more than $20 million on lobbying in 2008 and $12.3 million in 2009, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. They clearly have huge sway on Capitol Hill, according to a report on the Real News Network republicans that try to raise concern over Koch industries illegal drilling practices were told to back off. This vicious criticism of the Koch Industries as malignant is the most substantial criticism made against the Brothers; Pam Martens describes Koch industries as

'a private, dark curtain corporation. Its own stock has never been subjected to price discovery in a free market; the public can’t get a peek at the financials of this firm; there is no means of determining how much debt is on the corporate balance sheet or if, as with AIG and Citigroup, we, the sheared sheep, might have to bail the corporation out some day to save some too-big-to-fail bank that holds its debt'.- Pam Martens

Despite expressing Libertarian sympathies, a brief look at some of the organisations the Kochs fund illustrates that far from a coherent set of values and beliefs. The kochtopus extends to a plethora of institutions that have competing views. For example ' [David] Koch also said he now considers himself a Republican first and foremost — rather than a Libertarian or a nonpartisan supporter of free enterprise — despite a background in Libertarian politics and some views that are out of step with the GOP orthodoxy. “The Libertarian Party is a great concept. I love the ideals, but it got too far off the deep end, and so I dropped out,” Koch said. “I think the Republican Party has a great chance of being successful and that’s why I support it,”- Charles Koch. Furthermore, despite professing Libertarian values the Kochs spent £8 million on funding the ultra-conservative Scott Walker in Wisconsin, an actively tried to damage the Ron Paul campaign, as a result of his connection to the Mises Institute. Additionally investigative journalist Greg Plast in an interview with Alex Jones highlighted that the Kochs helped found the Democratic Leadership Council and gave support to Bill Clinton.
Ultimately the Koch's and their involvement in politics is a controversial issue that is of the utmost importance for the Libertarian movement. Britain's Adam Smith Institute has so far been scathing of criticism of the Kochs. Indeed for many the presence of a rich donor is something to celebrate rather than decry, the transition from a committed group of idealists to a functioning political organisation is never an easy one. Nevertheless as a movement that should be conscious how it will be seen by history. The question of the Kochtopus will be an important one for us to understand.

Where we stand

Part of the beauty of the Libertarian movement is that it is made up of an eclectic mix of groups and ideas. Although being a varied conglomeration of differing views and intellectual traditions ensures there will be tensions, as we move from the pages of philosophy books and into the political arena. For this reason, understanding and evaluating the Libertarian movement is of the utmost importance. The early Communists of the first and second international where notorious for ideological disputes and political wrangling that ultimately resulted in Stalin's 'great purge'. This is not to suggest the same thing could happen to Libertarianism, but it does demonstrate how an unstable political movement can lead to self-destruction.
It is this reason why the Koch brothers are such a contentious force in the history of Libertarianism. Arguably their relationship with Washington D.C and wide ranging support for extremely varied groups of people highlights a movement that is not yet comfortable with this process.
The goal has always been, Charles says, “true democracy,” where people “can run their own lives and choose what they want to buy, choose how to spend their money.” (“Now in our democracy you elect somebody every two to four years and they tell you how to run your life,” he says.) People running their own lives would be less democracy and more a private property society (i.e., a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist view), without legislators and other government operators attempting to micro-manage populations. Such a private property society would be a good thing, but it is hard to square Charles’ supposed take on this with the brothers behind the scenes role in propping up various politicians who move in a direction quite different from a private property society'-Robert Wenzel, Mises institute.
When we discuss ideas and theories, we often imagine a solitary figure or certain number of books and treatises. Yet the experience of the Kochtopus highlights world in which ideas are no longer the confines of lone philosophers and political groups. Even if this is not the case, a certain cynicism about the realm of political ideas is a defining feature of our age. Despite being nothing new, Money and politics have never gone more hand in hand.  A report in the Daily Bell confirms this reality:
'We believe that it is not so much "rich, well-connected individuals" that steer the country as a handful of top globalists with access to the incredible riches of central banking that they helped create and implement'- Daily Bell

'If competition was acknowledged as the main driver of industry standards and if the centralizing effects of modern monopoly central banking and corporate personhood were removed, oligarchic tendencies would be greatly diminished. This won't easily happen, however, because those in power SEEK an oligarchy and endorse the various socio-political and economic platforms that support it'-Daily Bell

At the heart of this issue is an uncomfortable set of decisions. Ludwig Von Mises highlights at the end of Human Action that: 'The flowering of human society depends on two factors: the intellectual power of outstanding men to conceive sound social and economic theories, and the ability of these or other men to make these ideologies palatable to the majority.'- Mises, Human Action

Therefore the issue of Koch funding requires analysis. 'Money for thought-analysis has to come from somewhere. The Cato Institute has solved the money problem by intensive fund-raising but in the process has become far less "edgy" than Mises under Rockwell'-Daily Bell. Admittedly for many the Koch brothers are wealthy political bogeymen. The Kochtopus a monster that must be removed from society. Yet this essay does not support that view. One could argue that whether the Kochs are a positive or Negative force depends on the person in question. Here we try to critically assess the relationship between the Kochs and their relationship to the wider Libertarian movement. And fundamentally we have to conclude that the relationship in an uneasy one. Conclusively for those that truly strive to achieve and accept the principles of a free-society, this is a question of our relationship to the existing state structure. Can we work with it? Can we work within it? Or does it need to be destroyed entirely? It is my fundamental belief that although we may have differing answers to these questions. As long as we are thinking about them, we ensure our place in the annals of history.

A city without people-Dubai: Building a Corporatist Paradise

History is littered with imagery and symbolism. To encapsulate the raw power of the Soviet Union in 1930s one needs only to look at the city of Magnitogorsk, with it’s brooding smoke towers, streamlined streets and dark factories. It is the perfect embodiment of industry and state authority. Similarly to appreciate the heights to which the British Empire reached in India, at the beginning of the twentieth century. The enormous palaces of New Dehli represent a decadent monument to imperial power and wealth. However these urban metaphores often defy the reality of their period. It is important to understand that much of the economic achievements of the soviet project were illusionary and built upon a mountain of bodies rather than economic progress. Similarly the imperial strucutures of New Dehli where a far cry from the isolated beachheads and rugged hinterlands that made up most of the British Empire. Nevertheless these examples are significant because of what they represent. This begs the question, is there somewhere today, that fully represents the modern world? Somewhere that truly symbolises the essence of the early Twenty- First century? I argue that there is such a place, and that place is Dubai. Since the 2008 financial crisis it could be suggested (and many have) that Dubai represents to worst excesses of capitalism. The slave labor, the uncontrolled market forces and the thinly veiled social divisions. Yet, this article seeks to explain that rather than describing the modern world explicitly Dubai provides an adequate lens through which to view the early Twenty-First century.

Founding the Corporatist Paradise

Arguably Dubai represents the indulgence, violence and horror of our time. It’s shimmering glass towers and sprawling slave labour camps are the perfect magnum opus of corporatist power. If you want a clear picture of how historians will look at the early Twenty-First century than Dubai is the best place to look. Until the 1990 Dubai was little more than a small fishing town, based on the pearl trade. Yet in the space of 20 years, it has grown into a modern metropolis. The story of Dubai provides a fitting narrative for the modern world. Oil, warfare, state power and exploitation, Dubai has it all. Since 1990 many have seen Dubai as a genuine capitalist success story. Independent and modern. Despite suffering a financial crisis, still growing at around 4% per year. Yet under the surface is a dismal reality of slave labour, US imperial expansion and catastrophic amounts of debt. It is an even more grotesque story for those that live there. No notion of rights and where government actively promotes exploitation and slavery. All disguised under glitzy façade of a modern functioning, capitalist economy.

Firstly we must asses the nature of Dubai’s history and how it cannot be called a free-market, but a crapitalist autocracy. It is a widely accepted myth that the building of Dubai is the fruits of Sheikh Rashid II bin Saeed Al Maktoum and his grand vision. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s Dubai tried to market itself as a great place to do business. The Jebel Ali free zone was established in 1979. In attempt to attract western business. Even throughout the 1980s a period often described as a neo-liberal renaissance, Dubai remained little more than a small desert town. It was only till the UAE sent funds to support the USA and its allies in during the 1990 gulf war against Iraq that Dubai really started to boom. Arguably this fact shows that although domestic economic policy is important in the development of a nation. What was really significant for Dubai and many other developing countries, is that being supportive of western imperial policy is a pre-requisite to prosperity. Furthermore, as is the case worldwide, what development really means in the Twenty-First century is not the growing of native industry, but making a state open to economic occupation by western transnational corporations. It was only after Sheikh Maktoum III bin Rashid Al Maktoum cemented himself as a western ally that the city expanded rapidly.

“Dubai is booming. Economic activity is everywhere. The city centre is a construction zone with international hotel chains competing for sites. Hyatt, Hilton, Ramada and Sheraton are already represented; Marriot and Holiday Inn are on the way.”

Ron Gluckman, Hong Kong of the desert?, 1992

Furthermore, when looking at Dubai it becomes immediately obvious that the state is an omnipresent entity that seeps into all aspects of life in the concrete oasis. Johann Hari described Dubai in his 2009 article The dark side of Dubai. “The wide, smiling face of Sheikh Mohammed – the absolute ruler of Dubai – beams down on his creation. His image is displayed on every other building, sandwiched between the more familiar corporate rictuses of Ronald McDonald and Colonel Sanders”. As historians begin to assess the Twenty-First century, the grotesque abuse of state power will be a factor that they cannot ignore in trying to understand the modern era. This is true not just of Dubai but of the entire western world. However the most disturbing aspect of Dubai, is that the ethnic Emiratis are rapidly forming an impenetrable class of self serving public officials. The identity of the Emirati elites that dominate Dubai, is inseparable from the idea of public service and respect for the monarchy. In relation to the Arab Spring “The UAE has seen a trickle of dissent amid a regional torrent. Emiratis are largely well cared for by their oil-rich government and seldom question policy” Financial Times, Arrests in UAE show Sensitivity over reform. “UAE residents pay prices well below the cost of production for electricity, water, food and petrol. Government hand-outs for Emiratis extend this generosity, as do an abundance of well paid government salariat. Per capita gross domestic product (GDP) averages about $40,200” Protests Fail to Garner Support.

This displays how the Sheiks who rule Dubai have little incentive to provide for those at the bottom of society. They are much less the champions of the capitalist society that they are often described as. Arguably they demonstrate how political elites form a close group of powerful allies and pander to their interest. On a superficial level the rapid development of the Dubaian skyline was not build through a process of allowing a free industrial society to flourish. Its rapid construction is the result of debt and political repression. Ahmed Kannah, professor of International Relations at the university of the Pacific describes how in the Emirati community, working for the private sector is stigmatised. Allegiance to the state has become an integral part of their national identity. Even Adulla Abdelkhaleq Professor of political science at Emirates University, an influential supporter of the monarchy states that the middle classes “ are the forces of change, but are also in bed with the regime,” says Abdulla. “They benefit from another and reinforce each other. The middle-class is usualy not revolutionary, they are a moderate kind of people” Protests Fail to Garner Support.

Yet despite the powerful presence of the king. Like the entire Twenty-First century world, his creation is built on top of a colossal mountain of debt. In 2000 two new ‘ free zones’ opened. The Dubai Internet City and Dubai Maritime City. Both allowing for the inflow of more foreign corporations and state run businesses. Countries from around the Middle East have come to describe this method of growth as the ‘Dubai’ model. However it is necessary to stress at this stage that altough every city has a dark past. Most of the urban world today has been build from profit and the success of industry. This is one of the key differences between Dubai and the west. Martin Hvidt of Southern Denmark University shows that in contrast to most western cities Dubai’s authoritarian state is in part, the key to it’s success. “From a statist perspective, democratic or participatory forms of governmental leadership might endanger development in its initial phases because it might divert investment and political focus away from key factors in economic development”. Martin Hvidt, The Dubai Model:An outline of key components of thedevelopmentprocess in Dubai, 2007. To conclude, it is an unfortunate fact, that in the Twenty-First century the state holds the key to success.

Enslaved by the state

It is important to understand that many of the institutions that are fundamental to Dubai’s success are not products of the western world. However to fully understand the conclusion historians should draw about the modern era from assessing Dubai. We must study the role that the state plays in perpetuating the misery of those the work there. Unlike Europe and North America the social institutions of Dubai bolster and support the slave labour system. Yet Dubai demonstrates how when the presence of an authoritarian state exists. There can be no free- market. It is often that case that those who decry the free-market often associate it with the untold sorrow that large portions of the worlds population live in. Yet after careful analysis it becomes immediately apparent that it is in fact the government that allows for the virtual slavery of thousands of migrant workers in Dubai. Dubai is anything but a truly free-market. Dubai is often regarded as the epitome of the diversified economy. However in reality, it is a cluster of state run businesses and foreign firms that make the lions share of economic growth. Respect for contracts, the right to collectively bargain, the rule of law and competition are all fundamental prerequisites for a truly free-society. None of these exist in the Hong-Kong of the desert.

The Emirati elite stress that these migrants, often of South Asian origin came here of their own free will and can leave at any time. However upon arrival in the UAE, migrants have their passports confiscated, making it virtually impossible to leave the country. Furthermore their earnings are often much less that what was promised or in some cases non-existent. Far from being a meritocracy Dubai’s migrants are often paid according to race and nationality. “The merchant state’s knowledge of them- their country of origin, their health, their capacity for work, the extent of their geographical mobility within the boundaries of the state. Is thorough and sufficient to the task of control” Dubai in a jagged world . Essentially any respect for free-market principles is decidedly missing in Dubai. However, in relation to the desert city’s historical significance it is not unique, “None of this is to say that Dubai or the UAE are peculiar in their exploitation of migrant workers or in the use of nationality, ethnicity and even race to categorize and manipulate the workers. One sees exactly the same arbitrary discrimination and selective imposition of “legibility” on various groups in the supposedly advanced countries of Europe and North America” Dubai in a jagged world. Supposedly slavery and human trafficking are illegal under Islamic law, however those that are exploiting these virtual slaves, are almost always the members of the government. Almost all companies that operate in Dubai are government owned or have close links with the king. As well as construction workers that often die on the job or commit suicide in the sprawling slums of Sonapur, domestic slavery and prostitution is rife in Dubai and actively promoted by the state. “Domestic workers are routinely abused by their employers. From beatings to rape” Nicholas Cooper, City of Gold,City of Slaves: Slavery and indentured servitude in Dubai, 2013. However far from being able to flee such a situation, as would be possible in a free-society. “When women act in response to their abuse they are charged by the government with crimes themselves; effectively women in Dubai face an environment in which they are punished for speaking out in abusive situations.” City of Gold,City of Slaves: Slavery and indentured servitude in Dubai.

Far from being a problem of unregulated capitalism. Dubai’s shameful human right record is the responsibility of its ruling class. “Dubai remains a dangerous place to even report rape. After reporting rape, some women have been arrested for “illegal sex acts,” and women who have been sexually assaulted face the possibility of being punished themselves” City of Gold,City of Slaves: Slavery and indentured servitude in Dubai. Ultimately it is apparent that the depravity and exploitation that exists in Dubai lies in that the state is complicit in these crimes. This is the case around the world. Historians would do well to take this into account. Furthermore it is worth mentioning that when the ruling elite of Dubai are challenged. They often say that without their presence, the country would descend into the hands of bloodthirsty Jihadists. The similarities between the rulers of Dubai,and the rulers of the western world is astonishing.

Conclusion

To conclude, it appears that just like Magnitagorsk or the palaces of New Dehli. Dubai is the perfect representation of its time. Built from nothing to a sprawlig metropolis in just over a generation. Dubai truly shows the awesome power of the forces that are shaping our world. The cataclysmic debt, the pervaive fist of government authority, exploitation of the people by a bloted ruling elite, tall glass buldings occupied only by wealthy CEOs and state officials and the threat (however real) of terror from an invisible yet persistent enemy. It does not explicitly demonstrate the rest of western civilisation, yet as a historical reference point Dubai has it’s use. Not free in any sense of the word, as we are led to belive. There will be those that will argue that it is one of many examples of the devestating effects of capitalism. But they will be wrong, the overarching presence of the monarchy will ultimatley prove that Dubai was anything but a unhampered free- market.A similar conclusion should be drawn about the rest of the western world. Yey most of the western world has no slave labur camps and we are mostly free to do as we wish. Be that as it may, Dubai’s historical significance as a lens through wich to view the modern world ensures its place in history. Dubai is truly a corporatist paradise.

Additional Reading

For a similar ‘microcosm’ arrproach to history. Microcosm: Portrait of a central EuropeanCity, by Norman Davies & Roger Moorhouse takes the example of Wroclaw in Poland as a means to asses European history.

If anyone has a more general interest in western civilisation and the role historical forces have play in creating he twenty first century Niall Ferguson’s Civilisation is a great place to start. As is Unfinished Empire by John Darwin. Also The Untold History of the United Staes by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick provides a merciless critique of the conext of U.S imperialism.

Critical views about Dubai can be hard to find. As most commentators are transfixed with the economic transformation of the desert city. However Dubai, The City as Corporation by Ahmed Kannah gives a compelling critical analysis of the nature of Emirati society and culture.

Bibliography

• Tosh, J (2010) The Pursuit of History, 5th edn., London: Picador.

• Cooper, N, City of Gold, City of Slaves: Slavery and Indentured Servitude in Dubai, Journal of Strategic Security, 6.5, (2013), 65-71, [accessed 4 April 2014].

• Hari, J, (April 2009) The Dark Side of Dubai, Available (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• The Third Estate ( Owen) (February 2013) Dubai is an Autocracy Built on Slave Labour. Why Would You Go on Holiday There? (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• Kanna, A, (Febuary 2010) Flexible Citizenship in Dubai: Neoliberal Subjectivity in the Emerging ‘City-Corporation’ (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• Lacey, R (2009) Inside the Kingdom, 1st edn., London: Hutchinson. (Closest equivalent linked to)

• The Economist (January 2013) Dubai’s Renaissance: Edifice Complex, (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• Gluckman, R (April 2013 ( Written 1992)) Hong Kong of the Desert, (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• Hvidt, M (2009) ‘The Dubai Model: An Outline of Key Components of the Development Process in Dubai‘, Center for Contemporary Middle East Studies, 41(12), pp. 391-418 [Online]. (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• Kerr, S, Peel, M (April 2011) Arrests in UAE Show Sensitivity Over Reform , (Accessed: 4th April 2014).

• Abdulkhaleq, A (July 2007) The Best and Worst of Times, Financial Times, (Accessed: 4th April 2014 via Kingston University).

• Neuhof, F (May 2011) ‘Protests Fail to Garner Support‘, Middle East Economic Digest,55(21), pp. 32- 33 [Online]. (Accessed on EBSCO 4th April 2014).

• Kanna, A (2007) ‘Dubai in a Jagged World’, Middle East Report, 1(243), pp. 22-29 [Online].

(Accessed via Kingston University 4th April 2014).

Forget the Wars on Drugs an Terror, the War for Health is Coming.

Recently, MPs in the UK voted in favour of banning smoking in cars where a child is present. The shadow health minister Luciana Berger (Lab) addressed the house of commons claiming that 'This is a simple measure that would make a world of difference to hundreds of thousands of children right across our country. Reducing the misery afflicted by passive smoking. Saving millions of pounds for our NHS and protecting children who do not have a voice, and do not have a choice. Who in 20 years time, will wonder how this was ever allowed in the first place'. This amendment passed 376 votes to 107 (please see link at the end of this article). The most fascinating thing about the passing of this new law ( set to be active by 2015) is the lack of attention it received in the media, after a few days of coverage the issue disappeared. This piece of legislation follows in a long line of piecemeal policies that can only be defined as 'moral' or 'safety promoting'. Another recent example of this is David Cameron's 'opt-in' system of viewing pornography. Whereby in order to have access to adult material online, users must actively contact their internet service provider ( again set for implementation in 2015). Far from being an angry tirade against 'Health and safety gone mad', this article will seek to identify a worrying trend in politics, whereby it is increasingly the government defines how best to live. And by doing so, adds to the already byzantine state structue. This, of course has a long history stretching back to the birth of the modern nation, but arguably as a result of two large-scale public wars over the past ten years it has taken a characteristically 21^st century tone. The War for health is the third public war.

21^st Century Tone

'Liberalism has to an increasing extent adopted the

policy of dictating the actions of citizens, and, by consequence,

diminishing the range throughout which their actions remain free' - Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus the State

Herbert Spencer wrote the following passage in 1885. Lamenting the rapidly expanding state. It is difficult to fathom what Spencer would have made of the modern state, however the meaning of this passage is to demonstrate how over the course of a relatively short space of time historically speaking. The idea of government intervention has changed mostly a foreign concept to an institution that has influence over every aspect of our lives. Since Spencer’s death in 1903 social concepts of liberty and life have changed dramatically. Throughout the postwar period,the public war been a defining feature. Since the late 90s a war for health has been quietly under way. Fundamentally, already at the beginning of the 2000s we were fighting two massive domestic wars. The war on drugs and the war on terror. Both have been disastrous in terms of casualties and in terms of expense The most renowned piece of legislation passed being the US patriot act in 2001. Similar laws have been implemented in Britain such as the prevention of terrorism act (2005). Arguably this sets a precedent of state power that is difficult to counter act. In fact it is obvious that in the media, government and big business. The idea of progress is inseparable from the growth of state power. It is this context that we must assess the gradual encroachment of the state into our lives. Not as opponents to safety and well-being, but as individuals that fully comprehend the very real dangers of unopposed government expansion. Even a cursory look at the exhaustive lists of legislation passed by the UK parliament over the past 15 years reveals that the vast majority are safety related. Often minor amendments to existing laws and regulations. This backdrop of constant high intensity government action, allows measures like banning smoking in cars possible with a minimal altercation.

Ultimately politicians on all sides provide little in the way of opposition to this 'progress'. Although in the news there may appear to be very real differences between the two sides of the debate represented by the established political parties. However in reality on the fundamental 'progressive' issues there is a silent, but concrete consensus. Ultimately it would be political suicide for any politician anywhere in the western world to denounce the war on drugs or the war on terror. Fundamentally the same atmosphere is rapidly developing around the issues of public health. It is often stated that in the UK, as a result of having a public healthcare system justifies an increasingly intrusive set of social policies. Yet in the USA, where healthcare is largely private, identical health policies have been implemented for a plethora of different reasons. Several US states have already banned smoking in cars where a child is present. True healthcare issues are complex and defy simple answers. However, increasing the scope of the state to deal with these issues will only lead to disaster.

Arguably governments are right to be scared about the public's health. In the next 20 years (see Link at the bottom of the page) an increasing majority of the populations of western countries will be of pensionable age. With the bankruptcy of the city of Detroit in July 2013 fresh in our minds. Governments are already struggling to keep the money flowing to their millions of dependants. The case is more acute in the UK where the public healthcare system faces a tsunami of demand in the near future. It is therefore understandable that governments are beginning to panic. Unfortunately many will fail to act before the situation hits crisis point. Consequently the 21st century theme of unopposed government expansion and public conflict will continue. As the state will need to grow, simply to sustain itself.

Wolves in Sheep's clothing

It is clear that the war for safety is rapidly gathering in pace. It is increasingly governments job to ensure that we live safe and healthy lives. Arguably, this is a long way off from William Beverage's idea of what a welfare state should look like. Ultimately government policy is more aggressive in protecting citizens from themselves then at any time previously. Again it is important to note that this is not a tirade against those who choose to live in a safer environment, or those who choose by voluntary means to live a healthy lifestyle. In fact, common sense encourages that we live safely and healthy, to the best of our ability. This article is concerned with the process whereby, under the guise of ensuring a high standard of public health, government is advancing it's reach far beyond what any sane person could permit.

As is the case with the war on drugs and the war on terror. The vast amounts of money spent on these public wars, does not justify the threat. Indeed, the threat is elusive. Intangible to the average citizen. Those outside the elite state sphere simply are not able to identify just how much we are all in danger. Thus, we must settle for the promise of protection. Usually at huge public expense, measured not only in terms of monetary value, but in terms of the liberties we must surrender so that our government can adequately fight this 'threat'. In his 2013 book Rise of the Warrior Cop Radley Blako outline a chilling scenario whereby under the guide of the war on drugs. The police forces in America have been militarized

'Not only does the military continue to provide surplus weapons to domestic police agencies, but thanks to the Department of Homeland Security grants, military contractors are now shifting to market resources toward police agencies. Worse, a new industry appears to be emerging just to convert these grants into battle-grade gear. That means we'll soon have powerful private interests, funded by government grants, who will lobby for more government grants to pay for further militarization- a police industrial complex' Radley Blako, Rise of the Warrior Cop

Furthermore already increasing amounts of government and state affiliated contractor money is used in airports, our streets and online to fight the war on terror. As a result of what has happened with drugs and terror, it could be argued that the same is happening to health.

Huge amounts of mandatory pricing already pushes up the cost of alcohol, cigarettes and foods that are high in sugar or fat. Despite the fact that little evidence shows that this has been effective in preventing people from living an unhealthy lifestyle. It is increasingly difficult to imagine a world in the near future, whereby the state does not use its power, under the guise on the 'war for health' to further advance its power. Admittedly there will be those who believe that the governments new role in promoting health is essentially benign. However this was the case with the war on drugs or the war on terror. Small scale advances that collectively add up, to from a new edifice through which the state extends its power. Ultimately these 'public wars' have little to do with the crusade that is used to identify them. The ultimate goal in an extension of state power. Evidence for this can be seen when we take a cursory look at society around us. Terror is no less of an issue, and illegal drugs no less relevant. The policies have had a negligible effect at best.

The war on drugs and the war on terror burn on. However another war is beginning to take shape, the 'war for health'. Even those who genuinely desire a more healthy society should worry about using the state as a means of achieving their desired aims.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/24/britain-ageing-population-lords-inquiry

Why UKIP Are Not A Libertarian Party

The British political landscape is at a critical impasse. As far as the mainstream media and the three main political parties are concerned the economy is starting to recover from the 2008 financial crisis. In the next five years the UK will have had another general election, a referendum regarding whether or not the UK should stay in the European Union, two rounds of European elections and Scotland will decide if it wants to remain part of the the British Union. So far, Britain has an interesting few years to look forward to. There is also a new force shaping British politics,The United Kingdom Independence Party ( UKIP). In recent years UKIP has risen from something political commentators used to joke about, to being a serious force on the UK's political scene. This article will attempt to asses the nature of UKIP, particularly the claim that they are a 'Libertarian' party. With the very real changes that are shaping contemporary Britain; UKIP pose a very real (and welcome) challenge to the established order in Westminster. Although, it may take generations for UKIP to achieve an electoral victory and form a governing party. Yet it is difficult to imagine a scenario over the next five years whereby UKIP will obtain no formal high ranking position in British politics. Therefore if UKIP claim to be Libertarians, we must asses this claim. To fully understand whether Nigel Farage and his party qualify as Libertarian it is necessary to understand the history of free-market and Right Wing ideas in post-war Britain. Ultimately this historical criteria provides the only adequate lens through which to analyse the modern UKIP party. This article will conclude that for many reasons UKIP do not represent a British Libertarian party.

In light of recent technological innovations, namely the internet alongside other means of mass communication. It is highly tempting to describe current political movements as 'new' or even 'revolutionary'. The 'internet reformation' has done much to emphasise the idea that before its existence the forces shaping current politics were not possible. Arguably this applies to UKIP. Some herald Nigel Farage as providing a refreshing new energy into British politics. However the emergence of UKIP and its relationship with Libertarianism go back rather a long way.

Given the dilemmas facing modern politicians, it's really quite surprising we don't hear more about Enoch Powell. A giant of the conservative party in the 1950s and 60s. He was a staunch critic of the expansion of the British state and had a major influence the young Margaret Thatcher. In many ways Powell was a Thatcherite 20 years too early. However in 1968 he delivered a speech named “Rivers of Blood” that espoused strong anti- immigration sentiments. Ultimately this saw Powell dismissed from the party. According to the Roger Eatwell, an expert in Far-Right British politics 'Powell had previously been known as an apostle of liberal free-market views, and it is not clear why he now turned to racial disharmony. There seems little doubt that he was genuinely concerned by what he saw as the threat posed to British society posed by immigration'. Perhaps as Eatwell suggests, Powell was genuinely concerned about immigration. Or, arguably he was simply playing to xenophobic sympathies in an effort to try and win over voters.

Either way, his legacy is important when looking at Nigel Farage and UKIP. Arguably, one could conclude that Powell's stance on immigration and by extension his vision of British society ensure that his free-market ideas are essentially secondary. There can be no immigration control without an unacceptable crushing of the individual's rights.

'A fully free, capitalist system has not yet existed anywhere. But what is

enormously significant is the correlation of racism and political controls in

the semifree economies of the nineteenth century. Racial and/or religious

persecutions of minorities stood in inverse ratio to the degree of a country’s

freedom. Racism was strongest in the more controlled economies, such as

Russia and Germany—and weakest in England, the then freest country of

Europe' Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

As the next section of this article will display. By simply having free- market economic sympathies, does not reward the title of Libertarian on a given individual. Many different ideologues espouse their definition of a 'free-market' with decidedly non- Libertarian results. Many coercive anti-freedom political traditions are sympathetic to what they define as a 'free market'.This consideration is arguably key to understanding the Libertarian credentials of UKIP.

The Far-Right In the UK has had a complex relationship with the economy. Therefore it is necessary to briefly trace the ideology that has shaped the right wing in the UK. From 1945 to 1980 British politics were defined by the 'the post -war consensus', a period in which Keynesian economics, the expansion of government institutions, namely the Welfare state and the NHS and a 'Mixed' economic model were defining features of the period. Fundamentally this period was hugely transformative for the conservative party. Consequently the Conservative party developed along a loosely fusionist formation during this period. Fusionism; an American idea that describes the formation of the republican party after 1945 coined by Frank Meyer, combines various groups on the political right. These groups are loosely defined as the religious right, foreign policy hawks, libertarians and elements of the xenophobic right. Despite not fully representing any of these groups, it gives the right wing political parties a chance to appeal to a broad spectrum of political affiliations. Arguably this fusionist approach has been adopted by the conservative party since the 1960s. It is this context in which UKIP must be assessed because they represent fusionism writ large. Whilst taking a more 'free-market' approach to the economy. UKIP Expounds a much harder line on immigration and social conservatism than the current Conservative party. For example the UKIP website advocates education policies that clearly demonstrate nationalist sympathies:

'Teach children positive messages and pride in their country. We want to unite through better Integration.'- UKIP website

This is in direct conflict with Libertarian ideas about using education policy as a means instilling national pride.

'One of the most common uses of compulsory public schooling has been to oppress and cripple national ethnic and linguistic minorities or colonised peoples- To force them to abandon their own language and culture on behalf of the language and culture of the ruling groups'- Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty

Yet confusingly, there has been a noticeable outpouring of support for UKIP within Libertarian circles. Just last week on Question Time (a highly popular UK political talk show) a UKIP member Janice Atkinson describes herself as a 'Libertarian' (despite the fact that she was in favour of giving government the power to ban smoking in the privacy of your own car). Yet this warm welcome is into the Libertarian community is unwarranted. Fundamentally, like the Conservative party since the 1960s, UKIPS fusionist nature ensures that it cannot be described as Libertarian. Like Enoch Powell fifty years ago, the social conservatism of UKIP is ultimately its defining feature...not Nigel Frages economic policies. Friedrich Von Hayek, arguably one of the defining ideologues associated with the Libertarian economic model remained opposed to the fundamental allying of the far- right with Libertarianism.

'True Liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is a danger of the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social programme; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to

socialism than true liberalism'. - F. A. Hayek

Therefore whilst there may be some elements of free-market ideology within UKIP. Ultimately they are a social-conservative party who expound strong nationalist principles and campaign on a strong patriotic platform. Which in the view of most Libertarian thinkers, is incompatible with free-society ideology.

Despite this ideological mismatch, which arguably is the most significant reason why UKIP shouldn't be considered Libertarian. There are undoubtedly those who will still see UKIP as a Libertarian party. However even if this is true there is little to suggest that once in power, it would remain that way for very long.

Rodger Eatwell describes that electorally, UKIP are a far-right phenomenon. In his 2003 book Fascism a History Eatwell claims that 'A more legitimate nationalist party, resulting from a split in the conservatives, could have significant potential'. This reads less like a prediction and more like a prophecy in relation to UKIP. Eatwell goes even further in Western Democracies and the Extreme Right Challenge stating how the British Nationalist Party (BNP) had ' An agreement with the UKIP, which includes some former extremists, not to contest the same regions would notably increase the BNP's chances of winning a seat'. Therefore Nigel Farage may have done much to reach out to a wider audience on the 2010s there is no denying UKIP's historic nationalist heritage.

The evidence clearly shows that rather than appeal to a previously unheard voice in British Politics, UKIP have simply syphoned off hard-line members from the conservative party's right flank. The attempts to 'detoxify' the Tory brand over the course of the 2000s in a large way explains the rise to prominence of UKIP. 'The Conservatives have unquestionably pandered to a racist constituency on occasion, but their basic role has been to manage racism rather than cause it'. Since xenophobia is not longer a vote-winner for the Conservatives, UKIP has appeared to fill the void. It is in this context that we should view UKIP. As part of a long populist, racist tradition in British politics. Not as Libertarians.

Furthermore according to the yougov profile on UKIP (see link at the end of this article) the issues UKIP voters feel most strongly about are (in descending order): The European Union- Immigration- Multiculturalism- The Benefits system- Drugs and The British Monarchy. The only vaguely Libertarian issue on this list is the benefits system, but even though it came fourth on the survey, it pales in comparison to the EU and Immigration as an issue of concern. Therefore even if people associate UKIP with Libertarianism, their core vote suggests that Libertarian policies would be very far down their 'to do list'. Ultimately this is because a party that takes a 'tough' stand on immigration is in contrast with Libertarian ideology:

'A major problem is that the the world's total land area is fixed, and that governments have universally pre-empted all the land and thus universally burden consumers'- Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy and State

'What the libertarian claims is that respect for human nature- the freedom of men and women to govern themselves unmolested, with their individual sovereignty intact- is the best policy to foster in human communities'- Tibor Machan, Libertarianism Defended

'Immigrants soon find their place in urban life, they soon adopt, externally, town manners and opinions, but for a long time they remain foreign to civic thought. One cannot make a social philosophy one's own as easily as a new costume'- Ludwig Von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis

Fundamentally UKIP do not represent a Libertarian Party in the UK. This article barley even touches on how UKIP's hard line approach to crime goes against a rich history of Libertarian thought, Fundamentally their nationalist appeal is profoundly anti-free society. However hopefully this article demonstrates that UKIP should be viewed in the contest of a long history of xenophobic thought in the UK and how given the opportunity to shape policy, how UKIP almost certainly wouldn't implement Libertarian policies. Although they may represent an anti-big government and a quite refreshing new energy into the British campaign trail (which at the moment is non existent). This does not constitute a truly Libertarian Party.

Yougov Profile: UKIP- https://yougov.co.uk/opi/search/?q=UKIP

The State is Slowly Destroying British Democracy

British democracy is becoming competitive

Britain is fast becoming a myriad of competing groups and factions. This is dangerous for democracy and reveals a foreboding vision of the future. In recent months there has been much talk of an economic recovery in the UK. Although an emergence out of the 2008 depression is most welcome. The experience of economic catastrophe has revealed a disturbing trend in modern British politics, that is slowly turning Britain into an arena for various warring factions used by politicians to divide society. Yet reducing the power of government to produce money, creating real rights for individuals and voting reform could remedy this worrying trend.

Of course it is true that politicians have to balance the demands of different sections in society. Yet it appears that of modern phenomena are beginning to intensify this trend. Traditionally the British voter is supposed to have a relatively easy choice come election time. In theory if you're poor, urban or northern you are supposed to vote Labour. Whereas if you're rich, rural or and southern you vote conservative. It is certainly true that psephology is far from an exact science. But aside from a few swing seats this trend has largely stood the test of time. This partly explains the current ideological mire that  plagues contemporary Britain. Yet new, factors are begging to intensify this pattern.

Firstly the rise of the internet has given a voice to millions of people that previously never had one. It is true that the rise of the internet itself does not change much without a significant mass of individuals being aware about a particular issues and possessing a framework of understanding about politics. But there is no doubting that more instant access to information certainly increases that sense of awareness. However it is fair to say that most people in modern Britain do not spend time publishing their political though online. Instead of a nation of dynamic and vocal bloggers, writers, tweeters etc. that would constitute a Socratic paradise. We have seen the rise of a sinister 'consensus culture'. This can be described as an obsession for politicians to appeal to all section of society mainly through various financial incentives. Essentially we are being bribed to vote a certain way. Arguably this really took of during the 1997 Labour campaign. A landslide victory for Labour that brought Tony Blair into Downing street.

This focus on consensus proved a relatively stable election strategy for Labour. Even after a deep depression, over ten years in power and the ascendancy of the highly unpopular Gordon Brown. Labour still gave the conservatives a run for their money in the 2010 election. In recent years David Cameron's premiership has seen similar focus on developing a consensus culture. With u-turns on almost every issue and a sharp divides over Europe, immigration and foreign policy that is slowly tearing his party apart. Blair's landslide victory in 1997 has given modern politicians the idea that with the right set of ideas, sound-bites and lots of funding you can win almost any voter. Yet this is starting to have some nasty consequences. Old ideas about social identity seem to be crumbling as attitudes surrounding identity have changed. Politicians often use catch all terms such as 'Alarm clock Britain', 'strives versus scroungers' or 'the squeezed middle'. As the UK abandons its attachment to class. New divisions are appearing. Young and old, private sector workers and public sector workers and NIMBYs versus those in favor of development to name a few. These differences existed previously, but are increasingly becoming bitter factions in the political bear pit.

On one hand some may welcome this change. Sure a government that is 'proactive' and 'listening to its people' can be construed as a positive change. However the more lasting legacy of the factionalism that is quickly becoming a feature of British society is that the state increasingly plays  groups off against each other. For example the current debate over immigration demonstrates how the political elite ( including the mainstream press among others) channel criticism away from the real issue at hand, in this case job security. And direct it towards migrants, a group that has little means of defending itself. A similar process has taken place with 'benefit cheats'. However both cases demonstrates how the primary responsibility of the state is to bestow or deny certain financial rewards on certain groups. This is sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

Yet there are certain steps that can be taken, albeit slowly to improve the situation. Firstly government should be reduced. The main reason that groups cry out for government support is because society has become essentially a subsidiary of the state. However 'rolling back the state' in the traditional financial sense will at first be insufficient and ultimately cruel on the poorest in society. By reducing state interference in a literal sense would mean enshrining in law principles that ultimately empower the individual. But this is unlikely for as history shows us, once the state has a taste for interfering in our lives, it becomes very hard for citizens to reclaim their rights. Secondly a proportional representation system of voting should be implemented to break up the monolithic political clans that dominate Westminster, thus bringing an end to forced consensus culture. Lastly an end to fiat currency would reduce the state's ability to print its own money. It is no coincidence that a state that has the ability to forge money out of thin air is rather generous with the handouts it gives to keep its population fighting among themselves. Yet these changes are long term and unfortunately highly unlikely, but as long people are kept fighting among themselves the more necessary these steps will become.  

Should We Still Listen To Marx?

Coming from a free-society perspective it would seem that issues surrounding class, the state and capitalism have been somehow resolved. Class is extinct, reducing the size of the state is an accepted doctrine no matter what the issue at hand and there appears to be a consensus that the more voracious the the particular brand of capitalism is, the better results it will yield. Yet this in my opinion; this sense of confidence is misplaced. Ultimately Marxism is not the correct answer to these questions. However to simply dismiss a debate on the virtue that is is 'Marxist' or 'Socialist' runs the very real risk of ideological dogmatism.  This is a relatively new phenomenon, almost 170 years after the communist manifesto has been punished in 1848, political thinkers are only just beginning to turn their attention away from Marx. Arguably no matter what your political affiliation, we should all still listen to Marx.

A significant reason for this change is historical. Since the downfall of the USSR, the capitalist transformation of China and the death of truly left-wing political parties in most of the Western world. There seems to be a notion of victory among anti- communist thinkers. A strong sense that for want of a better phrase 'we have won'. However this marks a stark contrast to 60 years ago during the immediate post- war era. Most of the philosophical architects that have built the modern political landscape ultimately had Marx to answer to. Not just in the realms of academia but in answering to the very real economic successes of the USSR and the wider communist world. Throughout 1950s-60s Britain, alleviating poverty, building adequate housing and dismantling empire (albeit reluctantly) were defining features of the period. This contrasts sharply with the current political issues Britain is dealing with. Most of the key ideologues of the past 100 years have been shaped by Marxism. Far from being relics of the past that are best forgotten. These 20^th century thinkers still shape our thoughts today- weather in favour or opposition to Socialism. To forget that is to abandon a fundamental set of concepts that shape our modern thinking.

The biggest casualty of this collective amnesia of Marx is that many seem to believe that anything that can be described as anti-communism by definition works... on the basis that it isn't what happened in the USSR. This sense of overconfidence is misplaced. The issues that Marx addressed over 150 years ago are still very relevant today. Global inequality has never been higher. It is true that in the West it is commonplace to have lots of material possessions that older generations could have dreamed of. However this does not excuse the fact that more and more the top 1% of the worlds rich are forming an impregnable global elite class. Middle level wages have all but stagnated since the 1980s and low level wages have plummeted. As well as ever rising inequality, successive western ( and increasingly non-western) governments put faith in unproductive consumption and financial engineering as an engine of economic growth. In many places this has decimated any notion of a functioning productive economy. Furthermore countries such as Germany, South Korea and Sweden that pursue active protectionist trade policies are now the global leaders in industry.

So this begs the question. All this time, was Marx right? The answer is ultimately no. It is truly a sign of the times that a capitalist ( A Marxist term) economy that practices protectionism can be considered 'Socialist'. The relative success of Germany, South Korea and Sweden among others owes to the fact that those nations pursue pacifist foreign policies and do not rack up huge amounts of debt financing a ridiculous military. In the case of South Korea, it pays for almost non of its own army. Also the Scandinavian countries and Germany take civil liberties much more seriously than Britain and the USA, thus you are much less likely to be impeded by government intrusiveness over your lifetime. A socialist system ultimately lies in coercion. A fallacy that society can be governed through violence, which even Marx's contemporaries criticized him for. Therefore Marx is not important because he has all the right answers... But he certainly asked the best questions. These questions remain unanswered today. We ignore them at our peril. 

The Current Libertarian Movement Needs To Change

Why the current Libertarian movement needs to change

Definitions: Please note that in this article I use the word 'Libertarian' to mean 'Right-Libertarian'. Also I will not use the term 'Anarcho-Capitalist'. Although I am myself a supporter of the set of principles that being an 'Anarcho- Capitalist' entails, ultimately the controversy that the term brings up ensures I will not be using it in this article.

Over the past few years I have closely watched the current 'Libertarian' manifestation evolve into something resembling a genuine movement. However, in it's current form it shows many symptoms of an idea that is about to wither away. Yet this is not to discredit the excellent academic work done by many writers around the world. But serious issues must be addressed.

The first reason for this slow stagnation of ideas is the movements instability. Without a shadow of a doubt libertarianism is at first glance exclusively a North American affair. Ideas about freedom and personal liberty seem to be a much more significant part of American political thought than in Europe...or so it would seem. It appears that thousands of Americans have taken well to the fiscally conservative side of Libertarianism with gusto. Many prominent members of the current Libertarian movement carry this socially conservative message namely Ron Paul -the high priest of American freedom along with others. Upon further analysis it seems clear to this writer that part of this confusion over what Libertarianism means has deep historical roots. Like all other ideologies it is built from a myriad of thoughts, voices and ideas. Therefore the fact that people who claim to be from the same ideology disagree on certain issues can be forgiven; there is nothing wrong with people holding 'conservative' values. Yet the the willingness to ride a popular wave has left the current Libertarian movement on an unstable footing. It is no coincidence that being in the midst of deep economic depression and new revelations almost every day that reveal the rotten depths to which state corruption and control has reached,has spawned a powerful anti- state, anti- government spending front. However Libertarians should have to confidence to move away from the populist ramblings of a prominent few.

It is these prominent few that are the second reason why the Libertarian movement is failing. It fails to answer tough questions. Even a cursory venture into the endless realms of the internet show that libertarians are failing to answer tough questions, are wrought with scandal and internally divided. As someone who follows many free-market publications with a watchful eye, one could argue that despite being prolific, Libertarian writers prefer to stay on familiar territory. If you want to know anything about finance, economics, government spying or the war on drugs then these outlets are a treasure trove of information. Yet on the other hand if you are interested in race, gender, history, immigration, Labour relations or for that matter anything that is happening outside of North America then forget it. It seems like Libertarians just don't care about addressing issues outside their own comport zone. A recent interview on the Keiser report with Austrian economist Antal Fekete brought to light a significant point, the Movement has become somewhat dogmatic. The detrimental effects of this I will address later. Secondly The movement is becoming riven with scandal. Many of the bigger figures in the free-market thinkers in the 21^st century fail to show a 'clean bill of health' in their private and public lives. This in itself is not an issue, and with the internet reformation giving people the ability to research the lives of academics ( private and public) in a matter of seconds. Prominent Libertarians need to address these concerns. The details of which I will not go into here. A large part of this problem is the bias of the popular media in the USA. Libertarians are easy pray for being denounced as racists, unsympathetic towards the poor and or worse. Yet very few libertarians seem ready to address issues concerned with these issues. Instead of shying away from criticism Libertarians should embrace and challenge it. Or forever try and build a movement of inherently usable foundations.

Lastly as I eluded to earlier, I would argue that the current Libertarian movement is decidedly becoming non- intellectual. Weather it's an aversion to dealing with unfamiliar issues, attempts of prominent Libertarians to address those difficult issues or the lack of good, constructive debate within the movement. Unfortunately all signs point to stagation. Free-market ideas have probably never been more popular than at any time in recent memory. But despite this, there is a dearth seriously influential libertarian thinkers in recent years. This is no to decry the amazing work achieved by many such as Walter Block, Lachman and Wendy Mcellroy to name a tiny handful. However I must conclude that overall there is no one uniting ideologue for modern Libertarianism. Part of the reason for this is the synthesis of the areas I have covered in this article. A lack of determination to address hard questions and preferences for popular short news clips or videos as opposed to academic journal articles and books. True easy to digest articles are extremely useful. And I am certainly not arguing that to be successful ideology there should be a closed off, cerebral cabal- shut away in an ivory tower. But a lack of solid academic material is seriously hampering the modern Libertarian movement.

Arguably this point proven by the very nature of the modern Libertarian Movement. I have previously discussed the over emphasis on economic issues within the Right- Libertarian Camp. This is because the Austrian Field of economics in essence, is the strongest card there is in Libertarian deck. Austrian economics has the closest thing to a uniting philosophy for all Libertarians. The major architects of modern Libertarianism are Austrian economists. Friedrich Von Hayek, Lugvig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard And Carl Menger are probably the most influential academics in Right-Libertarianism, and have made the largest contribution to its ideology. The Austrian school of economics has become the main framework of the Libertarian movement because it is academically rigorous, open to criticism and ruthlessly revised and revisited. As a result, there is a strong framework of academically accepted theory. It is work mentioning that other non-economists have made significant contributions to Libertarian ideology, Robert Nozick, Morris and Linda Tannehill, David Friedman, Ayn Rand not to mention countless academics that exist today and stretching back through the enlightenment.

In conclusion, one could argue that the current Libertarian movement has some severe weaknesses that need to be addressed in time. And I am confident that these issues will be addressed. But this will only be achieved with academic rigor and tackling difficult issues.