sǝuoſ ǝuıɥsunS | notebook, journal, inter-web log

Yale Historian, John Lewis Gaddis has written a new book on the history of the cold war. His perspective is somewhat refreshing in that his tone is less political, less celebratory, and much more interested in looking at history from the perspective of problem solving and a fair view of variables, accidents, errors, and a generally broad view of all sides involved. Rather than writing a long, unendurable Soviet/Bad - America/Good text book where Ronald Reagan proudly seats the white cowboy hat upon his oily head and rides off into the sunset, Gaddis has made a valiant, old school effort at examining the contrast of ideas, economics, and the causalities of the Cold War from the perspective of what history’s facts have demonstrated.

I tell you, it is indeed refreshing to learn about the ideas, their implementation, and the outcome as a means of examining history. I am so over the well framed ideology which seems to get placed over everything as a victor’s filter which seems to be the popular opinion these days.

The question of economics comes up as the summary of Gaddis’ book. A frank examination of how essentially Top down social economies won the battle against bottom up economics, totalitarian absorption, and even pipe dreams of rapid development of any economy. Further, Gaddis’ thoughtful poke through the history of the last 60 years assumes that the current state of the world economy is “what we want to see,” and the best of all possible outcomes. Broad as that is, hard as that is to hear, and all the thinking he quietly leaves out, he may be right. In terms of human rights, he is correct that the defeat of Japan and Germany was and remains essential to humanity, and the progress we have made since then. But remember, this was a book about the cold war, and not World War II. It’s interesting that in his only presentation of value judgement, and morality that Gaddis would reach for the clear and obvious importance of Germany’s defeat, when the case he is making ultimately is the benefit of Capitalism’s great victory over Communism as social, political, and economic ideologies.

I view economics from a basic perspective that a society must be capable of sustaining it’s people in order to thrive. This basic obligation supersedes what an individual or organization might amass for itself. The society as a whole must come first, and must be administered by that society itself, never be a formal state, and certainly not a corporation (as we endure today.) Sadly, this thinking in and of itself stems from a quote from Karl Marx himself, and his gross underestimation of the durability of Capitalism. He was experiencing the beginning of the end of capitalism in the middle of the 19th century, and while I agree that “when a society fails to sustain its own people, it is the beginning of the end,” it’s pretty clear that he also underestimated the extent to which humanity is actually willing to be exploited.

Still, I persist in my thinking that top down, and bottom up are neither appropriate perspectives for the ideal society.

Clearly bottom up, state capitalism is a failure. While Communism is an interesting and impassioned idea, it quickly degrades into a debate between what drives a human being, and how can the state gain access to the resources it needs to thrive. This polarizes the people against the state and therefore fails.

When organized from the top down, where the state is more of a filter of resources for the few, and thus supporting the many as we enjoy today in the west, the people are told that they can have anything they want if they can earn it.

This remains to be unseated as the popular thinking today, but my guess is that a society based on greed, ambition, and the cold shouldering of any civic obligations from the top of the culture to the bottom will also be proven to fail utterly. While mankind’s appetite for selfishness and abuse is surprising, it’s only a matter of time before the little totalitarian in each of us no longer agrees to go along with the wall-mart school of world domination. That said, I’m certain I will not see the end of this thinking in my lifetime, probably only the unpleasant, and ever evolving byproducts of it.

So if it’s not bottom up, where the worker in the wheat field is the owner of his country, and his fist can shake the world… If it’s not from the top down, where Wall-Mart, AT&T and Burger King would save their own hides, and leave me redundant and without options, to better serve the board of directors with seemingly endless profit, then where will we come from? How will we move this world toward what is right, and best for all human beings?

I believe that these are only the beginning of the important questions which we of the left need to examine, discuss and answer in depth before we will ever see bio-diesel, solar power, electric cars, social service for all who require it, and a thriving world economy devoted to the service of all mankind.

Crack the books, let’s get to it!