Revolution is a big name. The term itself is frightening for many. Some wanted to make the term more acceptable by associating it with silent social change. Hence, the words “silent revolution” have been introduced. If such a thing exists, that is a debate for another day.
Historically and ideologically speaking, the word is associated with a violent overthrow of the status quo. We have many examples of this type of revolution both in the past and in recent times.
I think the most popular among them is what happened in 1789, the so-called French Revolution. Its success was celebrated almost everywhere, but its triumph lasted only for a brief period of time and ended in disillusionment among its followers.
Since that time, though there are still few who have not given up on this method to change society, the academic consensus is no longer favorable of the use of violent overthrow of the existing order to see change. Yes, change is still embraced, but the use of violence is no longer necessary.
One philosopher describes this non-violent change as a kind of action of the “eternal spirit” which “is unceasingly occupied in breaking down while building up, and in breaking up while building down.” It was believed that “whatever exists is therefore pure becoming, not being; it exists for no other purpose but to pass away . . . the old continually gives way to the new” (Herman Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 1953, pp. 10-11).
With the above philosophical overview, we are returning to the topic that I have covered for the last three weeks:
This time, I will continue my discussion of the psychological consequences of bureaucratic management. I already mentioned in an earlier article that Ludwig von Mises identified at least five of them. And one of these outcomes that he mentioned is the “increasing violence leading to civil war.” This is the fourth psychological result of bureaucratism as explained by our economist in the 6th chapter of his book.
What I intend to do at this point is to briefly describe the third and the fifth consequences first before I will return to the fourth one, which I consider more controversial.
These are the three questions I aim to answer in this post:
- What does Mises mean by the disappearance of the critical sense? Can you give specific examples of such a psychological result?
- Who provided the philosophical basis for the idea of an elite paternal government? Is such an idea sustainable in the real world?
- How can cryptocurrency help prevent violence and revolution?
Let us now begin with the fifth and last outcome of bureaucratic management:
Disappearance of the Critical Sense
This outcome is also surprising. In an age that boasted about revolutionary and critical ideas, there is no way that Mises could be right in his analysis. However, by the disappearance of the critical sense, Mises was referring to the absence of "common sense and self-criticism" (p. 105) as demonstrated in four concrete examples. Moreover, I just want to limit myself to three examples:
1. Elimination of competition.
For our economist, the idea that competition can be completely eliminated is the first concrete example of the absence of critical sense. For Mises, "competition can never be eliminated" (ibid.). Under an alternative system, the kind of competition that we currently have will just be replaced with another kind of competition. He elaborated more on the distinction between these two kinds of competition:
The capitalist variety of competition is to outdo other people on the market by offering better and cheaper goods. The bureaucratic variety consists in intrigues at the 'courts' of those in power" (ibid.).
2. Adulation of the masses.
This is another controversial but insightful observation coming from our forgotten economist. He compared this new kind of “dictatorship” to the old type of dictatorship. Though this interpretation of Mises is considered antiquated, swallowing it in our time is still difficult, particularly in democratic countries. Unlike in the past, despite the fear of dictators, there were still few who raised their voices of disagreement. But the time that Mises described is different. None dared to contradict the popular opinion for the new sovereign now is the common man. Everyone competes in praising this new sovereign, and no one has the courage to advocate ideas contrary to public opinion. With this kind of trend, it becomes very convenient to be the champion of the masses. This is the essence of good politics in our time.
3. The superiority of bureaucratic management.
A generation that considers the bureaucratic system superior to the free market system is a clear indication of the lack of critical sense. Such superiority is seen in the growth of bureaucracy and government operation of industries in Europe, the emphasis on the importance of identification papers, the popularity of government services, and the concept that personal freedom can be preserved under full-grown bureaucracy.
Commenting on the popularity of government services, Mises wrote:
A public office "approached by many people is not proof of its satisfying an urgent need of the people" (p. 108). Instead, "It only shows that it interferes with matters that are important to the life of everyone" (ibid.).
Elite Paternal Government
Elite paternal government is the third psychological outcome of bureaucratization. At this point, Mises quoted Plato who provided the philosophical basis for this idea. In antiquity, the Greek philosopher conceptualized this idea of paternal government as managed by the elite without ulterior motives. This elite class of leaders is described as “unselfish philosophers,” “unbribable judges” and “impartial administrators” “strictly abiding by the eternal immutable laws of justice" (p. 101).
Ludwig von Mises was confident enough to identify and criticize the error in Plato’s philosophy. Mises admitted that this Platonic idea served as the pattern for all utopians who formulated their master plans. However, this is how Mises described the problem with Plato’s idealism:
It does not pay any attention to the evolution of social and economic conditions and changes in human ideas concerning ends and means. . . The notion of progress in knowledge, in technological procedures, in business methods, and social organization is foreign to Plato's mind" (ibid.).
Increasing Violence Leading to Endless Civil War
As stated earlier, this is the fourth psychological outcome of bureaucratic management and it is in this outcome where I got the idea of revolution.
Our economist explained how this came about. For those who advocate political salvation through an elite class of men, there is no doubt in their minds that a society must be governed in an authoritarian fashion. However, the problem with dictatorship is that many are potential competitors. "If the decision between various candidates is not left to majority vote, no principle of selection remains other than civil war" (pp. 103-104). Mises backed up this assertion with a historical example:
The German "Fuhrer principle" is as old as the Roman Empire. The Emperor embodied "the ablest and eminent man" (p. 104). However, the Empire started to collapse through "continuous civil war, anarchy, and rapid decay" (ibid.) when no one was qualified to replace the most perfect among men. "The rule of the worst was substituted for the rule of the best" (ibid.). "Treachery, rebellion, and murder became the selective principle" (ibid.). For Mises, "a system that can be wrecked by the fault of only one man is a bad system. . ." (ibid.). It is in this way that "a Fuhrer system must necessarily result in permanent civil war. . ." (ibid.). Here Mises seems to equate the Fuhrer system with the bureaucratic system in which violence is the ultimate basis.
How Can Cryptocurrency Prevent a Violent Revolution?
In my post a week ago, @gadrian made the following comment:
It's interesting Ludwig von Mises studied the effects of bureaucracy on our society almost a century ago (by the publishing date) and yet we have lived and still live in such a society. Maybe we've finally reached an inflection point.
And then I made this reply:
I believe so because if people won't find an alternative, the days ahead of us is very frightening.
In the mind of Mises, if something is not done to diminish the influence of bureaucratism, mankind’s future is very dark. It could lead to social chaos, deeper poverty, and increasing tyranny.
As I mentioned earlier, with the innovation and development that are happening in our time in blockchain technology and cryptocurrency, people now have a choice to free themselves from bureaucratic control.
A recent example is the result of political election here in our country. Since the son of the former dictator won the highest office in the land, not a few are worried about the possible threat that the incoming administration will do to their assets. Reading messages in group chats, you can see some thinking of either protesting on the street due to a perceived election anomaly or migrating their families to other countries.
Whether such fear has a basis or not, with the current development in the digital space, I don’t think there is a need for such physical migration just to protect someone’s property. Though I am not sure if this can be applied to all types of assets, at least one can choose to transfer a big portion of it in the form of cash to digital nations such as Hive and other decentralized blockchains out there.
Conclusion
In concluding his discussion about the psychological consequences of bureaucratic management, I was surprised to read that Mises identified that the intellectuals were the most vulnerable sector of society that unreservedly embraced bureaucratic propaganda. This is unfortunate.
However, there is no room for despair. We also know that there are also intellectuals like F. A. Hayek and others who happened to stumble on Mises’ ideas leading to a change of mind in favor of free markets and individual choice. Let us hope that their number will continue to grow.
Grace and peace!
Reference:
Mises, L. (1944). Bureaucracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
