This idea of giving a list of must reads books has been doing the round on many blogs. I thought I might as well give it a go.
There are so many important books though that I thought I'd make a split between the 10 must read books that are directly decentralist, localist, distributist or regionalist or very close and those 10 who set the scene and background for my traditionalist, Christian decentralism. Of course though there is bound to be some overlap, in particular the background list is unlikely to include any books directly contrary to the ethos of the decentralist/regionalist one.
Oh and I thought I'd rule out any scriptural works from the Bible to the Tao Te Ching, in my opinion the scriptures of the orthodox traditions are worthy reads by definition(though the right background and mindset is always required of course.) as well as other pre-reformation works(which rules out the best works but deciding upon the key ancient and medieval works, particularly if you include those outside the Western tradition, would be a task I'm not worthy of and would necessarily take away from majesty of these works.).
The first five of the top ten background works on religion, politics and society post-1500:
1. Logic and Transcendence by Frithjof Schuon, this is one of the greatest works of one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. It elucidates key planks of Philosophia Perennialis and sets forth the reality of the divine, the role of faith, the Intellect and reason and the spiritual life. It is an excellent aid to understanding the transcendent unity of the orthodox traditions, the importance of following a particular tradition and the basis for an understanding of metaphysics truth which is the ground of all truth including politcial and social truth. Schuon's essential works are also key readings.
2. The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the times by Rene Guenon. Guenon is another key perennialist thinker and this work represents not just an excellent presentation of that philosophy but an extremely detailed attack on key areas of modernism and the modern world using principles derived from the Perennial tradition. Jacob Needleman has described Guenon's work thus:
“Many of Guenon’s books . . . are such potent and detailed metaphysical attacks on the downward drift of Western civilization as to make all other contemporary critiques seem half-hearted by comparison.”
He helps to show the correct attitude man should have to God, the universe, nature and his fellow man and how the modern world is getting it so very wrong and hence it is an excellent foundation for sound politics.
3. Reflections on the revolution in France by Edmund Burke. The foundational text, in many ways, of modern conservatism. It contains many of the key components of conservatism, at least in embryio.
4. The Conservative mind, from Burke to Eliot by Russell Kirk. This epic work charts almost two centuries of conservative thought, particularly the more romantic and traditionalist strains, including such key figures as Burke, John Adams, John Randolph of Roanoke, Disraeli and John Henry Newman. Kirk ably shows the insight of these figures and draws out the similarities of their thought into a cohesive and all-ranging, but adaptive and non-rigid, whole.
5. Ideas have Consequences by Richard Weaver. This work is a reiteration of Platonism in a modern context, showing the importance of ideas, hierarchy, distinction and idealism in a balanced and healthy society and political opinion. Another excellent foundational text for dealing with man, the universe and society.
To be continued.....
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Federalists, antifederalists, founding fathers and regionalists.
Here's another rather slap-dash offering for the Wessex regionalist forum that might be worth sharing.
"Recently I've been study American politics at uni and been doing an essay on the
origins of the US constitutions through which I've been reacquainted with the
federalists, antifederalists and founding fathers, all of which I'm convinced
have something to aid us regionalists and decentralists.
These figures are of interest to Wessex regionalists for several reasons.
I think importantly they deal with constitution making and nation building
which is an important area for us regionalists and they tend to do so not in the
fanciful, abstract way of the Jacobins but in a far more measured and
historically minded way. Particularly when taken together the federalists,
antifederalists and founding fathers, particularly Jefferson and John Adams,
show an encyclopedic scope of interest and ideas, perhaps due to their living
before the growth of modern ideologies, but still seem to retain that necessary
balance.
This is particularly true with their solution to the problems of a federal
system and one where the central gov't is limited in size and scope. There is a
difference in the individual authors but they deal ably with the need for unity
in diversity, this in my opinion is particularly true of the abler
antifederalist writers such as Brutus, the federal farmer, Cato and Centinnel
who deal with the need to limit central gov't power and deal with the individual
branches of gov't(Brutus deals particularly well with the judiciary.). Balanced
with the federal papers, just so the need for some central coordination and how
to best manage this is not forgotten, and Jefferson and John Adams and I can
imagine few better guides to regionalists and decentralists in the mechanics of
subsidiarity and "federalism".
What is also good for us Englishmen is the level of reliance these figures tend
to place on the English political tradition which may help us to remember and
reformulate our own traditions of political liberty and balance. Blackstone,
Magna Carta and Coke for instance are as important to the debates around the
constitution as Locke and Montequieu. Which brings me to the final positive
which is a more personal one, they actually, through some alchemy manage to
produce some good from the likes of Locke, Hume, Montesquieu and such who in my
opinion have very little offer otherwise.
There are obviously a few negatives though. The major ones are they deal mainly
with politics and not so much society and economics, although these both are
touched on quite a bit and even quite masterfully at times particularly by John
Adams(also Thomas Paine's only worth, in my opinion, is his economic ideas but
these go halfway to making up for the rest.). However the emphasis is still very
much on the more narrow task of constitution and nation building, although you
can't have everything of course.
Another negative is that although they largely manage to avoid the naive and
crude radicalism of the philosophes and Jacobins there is still a lack of overt
traditionalism and that vein of Burkean conservatism that is necessary for a
complete perspective on politics and society, particularly for decentralist.
However there is enough implicit traditionalism and the overt and extremely
insightful conservatism of John Adams to partially make up for this,
particularly if one takes into account John Randolph of Ranoake from the next
generation.
Some of the key documents including the federalist and anti-federalist papers
are available online:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm
Otherwise the political writings of Jefferson, John Adams, Madison and Paine's
Agrarian Justice are all very much worth reading as Wessex regionalists and
simply as those interested in politics.
What the antifederalists were? By Hertbert Storing,and The library of America's
debates on the constitution parts one and two(which contain most of the key
primary documents of both sides.) are good works of reference as well."
"Recently I've been study American politics at uni and been doing an essay on the
origins of the US constitutions through which I've been reacquainted with the
federalists, antifederalists and founding fathers, all of which I'm convinced
have something to aid us regionalists and decentralists.
These figures are of interest to Wessex regionalists for several reasons.
I think importantly they deal with constitution making and nation building
which is an important area for us regionalists and they tend to do so not in the
fanciful, abstract way of the Jacobins but in a far more measured and
historically minded way. Particularly when taken together the federalists,
antifederalists and founding fathers, particularly Jefferson and John Adams,
show an encyclopedic scope of interest and ideas, perhaps due to their living
before the growth of modern ideologies, but still seem to retain that necessary
balance.
This is particularly true with their solution to the problems of a federal
system and one where the central gov't is limited in size and scope. There is a
difference in the individual authors but they deal ably with the need for unity
in diversity, this in my opinion is particularly true of the abler
antifederalist writers such as Brutus, the federal farmer, Cato and Centinnel
who deal with the need to limit central gov't power and deal with the individual
branches of gov't(Brutus deals particularly well with the judiciary.). Balanced
with the federal papers, just so the need for some central coordination and how
to best manage this is not forgotten, and Jefferson and John Adams and I can
imagine few better guides to regionalists and decentralists in the mechanics of
subsidiarity and "federalism".
What is also good for us Englishmen is the level of reliance these figures tend
to place on the English political tradition which may help us to remember and
reformulate our own traditions of political liberty and balance. Blackstone,
Magna Carta and Coke for instance are as important to the debates around the
constitution as Locke and Montequieu. Which brings me to the final positive
which is a more personal one, they actually, through some alchemy manage to
produce some good from the likes of Locke, Hume, Montesquieu and such who in my
opinion have very little offer otherwise.
There are obviously a few negatives though. The major ones are they deal mainly
with politics and not so much society and economics, although these both are
touched on quite a bit and even quite masterfully at times particularly by John
Adams(also Thomas Paine's only worth, in my opinion, is his economic ideas but
these go halfway to making up for the rest.). However the emphasis is still very
much on the more narrow task of constitution and nation building, although you
can't have everything of course.
Another negative is that although they largely manage to avoid the naive and
crude radicalism of the philosophes and Jacobins there is still a lack of overt
traditionalism and that vein of Burkean conservatism that is necessary for a
complete perspective on politics and society, particularly for decentralist.
However there is enough implicit traditionalism and the overt and extremely
insightful conservatism of John Adams to partially make up for this,
particularly if one takes into account John Randolph of Ranoake from the next
generation.
Some of the key documents including the federalist and anti-federalist papers
are available online:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm
Otherwise the political writings of Jefferson, John Adams, Madison and Paine's
Agrarian Justice are all very much worth reading as Wessex regionalists and
simply as those interested in politics.
What the antifederalists were? By Hertbert Storing,and The library of America's
debates on the constitution parts one and two(which contain most of the key
primary documents of both sides.) are good works of reference as well."
Saturday, March 6, 2010
US neoliberalism versus European social democracy.
What with university I haven't posted for ages but I thought this post on the Wessex regionalists discussion board was good enough to be repeated here:
"I'm hardly a defender of the US system. I simply don't consider social democracy
as any better. Both systems have their many faults, some similar and some
different. Basically neoliberalism and social democracy(or the Keyneisan
consensus.) are statefueled, very similar systems which ultimately are just
about supporting corporate-capitalism in slightly different ways.
What one needs to recognise about corporate-capitalism and capitalism is they
are state creations; state intervention has been used to benefit the rich and
corporations. This however creates a structural imbalance, which is at the heart
of Keynes' diagnosis of the problems of capitalism and which is key to Marx'
business cycle theory and to many other similar observations(for instance JA.
Hobson's and the Hammonds.).
This imbalance is basically that the state intervention upsets the distribution
of wealth so that a few are very rich compared with most people's income and
most importantly these few take a very large proportion of the proceeds of the
production of goods compared to their numbers(or indeed their actual input.).
This means that there are too many goods being produced for most people to buy,
ie there is overproduction of goods, as the rich simply cannot or will not use
all their income to buy the goods being produced and the average people, taken
as a whole, cannot afford to. Linked to this the rich end up with a lot of
money, far more than even the most debauched is likely to spend on luxury, which
they need to do something with and they naturally, due to the internal dynamics
of the system, feel they need to invest. But as mentioned there is already an
overproduction of goods domestically so that this accumulated capital is too
much to be normally useful investment which leads to the situation of an
overaccumulation of capital.
So basically the original imbalance leads directly to a situation of
overproduction of goods, where there are goods being produced without the
effective demand to purchase them and an overaccumulation of capital which
cannot be invested with any likelihood of a decent return. So this means that
either the system will experience a crisis(such as a depression.), it will be
dismantled or the state will have to intervene further in order to manage demand
and provide reasonable outlets for investment. The middle option is that chosen
by distributism, the last one is that of both the neoliberals and social
democrats.
Obviously there is a lot of shared ground between these latter ideologies, they
both attempt to open up more markets overseas(in which their nation's companies
are advantaged.), they both enact demand management and guarannted outlet
programs, they both attempt to try and maintain labour discipline and maintain
discipline among the populace at large so as to ensue the largest, safest profit
for big business and the rich. The difference is only in emphasis. Social
democracy, or the "Keyneisan consensus", attempted to bring big businsess, big
gov't and big labour together in a relatively harmonious attempt to deal with
these problems and it tends to have an important place for social welfare within
the demand management and population pacification realms. Whereas neoliberalism,
reacting to several problems like stagflation, accumulation crises and the 60s
legitimisation crisis that arose in social democracy, emphasises bringing labour
and the population to heal rather than working so hard to bring them on board.
It also downplayed the importance of social welfare compared to direct markets
and subsidies to corporations(although this was only a minor readjustment;
direct markets and sudsidies were important during the Keynesnian consensus as
well.) and made sure the balance between big gov't and big business was
maintained and gov't, who big business utterly relies on, did not overstep the
boundaries that the corporations decide upon.
Obviously this continued state intervention leads to the production of even more
goods and the accumulation of even more capital which perpetuates and increases
the original imbalance. Hence unless even more demand is conjured up by the
state to get enough of these goods purchased and even more outlets are found for
enough successful investment of overaccumulated capital then the system will
crash. the obvious inference is that this cannot go on for ever, one day the
operations will become too much for even the most energetic of modern gov'ts and
whether it is in 10 years or a 100 the system will collapse, unless it is
dismantled beforehand, and the crash will be that much bigger for all the effort
aimed at keeping it at bay for so long.
This is why distributism is not a luxury but a necessitity, the only other
solutions are the chaos of an evential massive collapse of global capitalism or
a new form of slavery, as Belloc realised.
Social democracy therefore is little better than neoliberalism, they are both as
corrosive to local and regional loyalties, to intermediate associations such as
family and local community and to traditional values. They are both as
state-driven and opposed to real economic freedom for most individuals where
they have the ability to own their own houses, their own land and productive
property and, if they do choose to work for a wage, where they can have a proper
dignity as an artisan and not a proletariat wage-slave. Certainly most employees
in Britain, Australia or Western Europe are hardly in a much better ultimate(not
in mariginal ways like a bit more pay but real econommic freedom such as
independence, control, dignity creativity and such.). I have only worked casual
jobs myself but everything single one has been like pulling teeth, I doubt
socially democatic Australia is much better than the US in this respect(although
obviously my personal experience doesn't go past partime jobs while I'm
studying.).
When to the US, it is the federal gov't which created the corporate-capitalist
system far more than the state, the states would have not been able to engineer
such a system if the feds had been kept in their place, or it is unlikely
anyway. It has taken massive intervention since 1789 including opendoor
imperialism, the Brettonwoods institutions(which are little more than a way for
Western capitalists to dominate the world's economies.), corporate personhood
and welfare, guaranteed buyer schemes like the military-industrial complex and
so on. Did you know that congress' own 1980 report showed that in 1976 direct
subsidies to industry outweighed corporate profits?
Certainly we need to be more intelligent than those who paint the feds as always
bad and the states and locales as always good, we are talking of humanity and
there needs to be balance(although whether that requires a gov't the
size[geopraphically as well as other kinds.] of the US federal gov't is
obviously questionable.). But as regionalists and decentralists it is obvious
that we are going to feel that on balance the states and locales are better and
should have more power than the higher up levels and on balance we are supported
by the evidence.
One positive of the American system is that, outside the liberal coasts, the
elites and the media, there is a far more conscious and cohesive section of
social conservatives who, misled as they are in choosing allies and in how they
view economics, still maintain old fashioned values and committment to the key
smallscale associations like the family and a necessary idea of social cohesion
which under so much threat in Europe and which when undermined results in the
tensions and problems of social atomism and the clear scope for centralised
power to move in with the barriers and support of a healthy, strong society and
social bonds removed. Obviously corporate-capitalism and its necessary statism
will achieve this social disintegration almost as fast in the US, but at least
there is a more cohesive, conscious faction(because we exist in Britain and
Europe but lack group consciousness and cohesion.) which doesn't consider social
disintegration and atomism a good thing(the only difference between atomists
seems to be the divide between the right atomists who want powerful corporations
to provide for an atomised society and left atomists who want a powerful,
centralised state to provide for an atomised society.) unlike a lot of
Europeans(and liberal yanks.) who have come to celebrate the lack of any but the
most vague and fluffy social values, social authority and social bonds as a
positive development; as if an individual shorn of all his social and cultural
supports is likely to find freedom, contentment or peace."
"I'm hardly a defender of the US system. I simply don't consider social democracy
as any better. Both systems have their many faults, some similar and some
different. Basically neoliberalism and social democracy(or the Keyneisan
consensus.) are statefueled, very similar systems which ultimately are just
about supporting corporate-capitalism in slightly different ways.
What one needs to recognise about corporate-capitalism and capitalism is they
are state creations; state intervention has been used to benefit the rich and
corporations. This however creates a structural imbalance, which is at the heart
of Keynes' diagnosis of the problems of capitalism and which is key to Marx'
business cycle theory and to many other similar observations(for instance JA.
Hobson's and the Hammonds.).
This imbalance is basically that the state intervention upsets the distribution
of wealth so that a few are very rich compared with most people's income and
most importantly these few take a very large proportion of the proceeds of the
production of goods compared to their numbers(or indeed their actual input.).
This means that there are too many goods being produced for most people to buy,
ie there is overproduction of goods, as the rich simply cannot or will not use
all their income to buy the goods being produced and the average people, taken
as a whole, cannot afford to. Linked to this the rich end up with a lot of
money, far more than even the most debauched is likely to spend on luxury, which
they need to do something with and they naturally, due to the internal dynamics
of the system, feel they need to invest. But as mentioned there is already an
overproduction of goods domestically so that this accumulated capital is too
much to be normally useful investment which leads to the situation of an
overaccumulation of capital.
So basically the original imbalance leads directly to a situation of
overproduction of goods, where there are goods being produced without the
effective demand to purchase them and an overaccumulation of capital which
cannot be invested with any likelihood of a decent return. So this means that
either the system will experience a crisis(such as a depression.), it will be
dismantled or the state will have to intervene further in order to manage demand
and provide reasonable outlets for investment. The middle option is that chosen
by distributism, the last one is that of both the neoliberals and social
democrats.
Obviously there is a lot of shared ground between these latter ideologies, they
both attempt to open up more markets overseas(in which their nation's companies
are advantaged.), they both enact demand management and guarannted outlet
programs, they both attempt to try and maintain labour discipline and maintain
discipline among the populace at large so as to ensue the largest, safest profit
for big business and the rich. The difference is only in emphasis. Social
democracy, or the "Keyneisan consensus", attempted to bring big businsess, big
gov't and big labour together in a relatively harmonious attempt to deal with
these problems and it tends to have an important place for social welfare within
the demand management and population pacification realms. Whereas neoliberalism,
reacting to several problems like stagflation, accumulation crises and the 60s
legitimisation crisis that arose in social democracy, emphasises bringing labour
and the population to heal rather than working so hard to bring them on board.
It also downplayed the importance of social welfare compared to direct markets
and subsidies to corporations(although this was only a minor readjustment;
direct markets and sudsidies were important during the Keynesnian consensus as
well.) and made sure the balance between big gov't and big business was
maintained and gov't, who big business utterly relies on, did not overstep the
boundaries that the corporations decide upon.
Obviously this continued state intervention leads to the production of even more
goods and the accumulation of even more capital which perpetuates and increases
the original imbalance. Hence unless even more demand is conjured up by the
state to get enough of these goods purchased and even more outlets are found for
enough successful investment of overaccumulated capital then the system will
crash. the obvious inference is that this cannot go on for ever, one day the
operations will become too much for even the most energetic of modern gov'ts and
whether it is in 10 years or a 100 the system will collapse, unless it is
dismantled beforehand, and the crash will be that much bigger for all the effort
aimed at keeping it at bay for so long.
This is why distributism is not a luxury but a necessitity, the only other
solutions are the chaos of an evential massive collapse of global capitalism or
a new form of slavery, as Belloc realised.
Social democracy therefore is little better than neoliberalism, they are both as
corrosive to local and regional loyalties, to intermediate associations such as
family and local community and to traditional values. They are both as
state-driven and opposed to real economic freedom for most individuals where
they have the ability to own their own houses, their own land and productive
property and, if they do choose to work for a wage, where they can have a proper
dignity as an artisan and not a proletariat wage-slave. Certainly most employees
in Britain, Australia or Western Europe are hardly in a much better ultimate(not
in mariginal ways like a bit more pay but real econommic freedom such as
independence, control, dignity creativity and such.). I have only worked casual
jobs myself but everything single one has been like pulling teeth, I doubt
socially democatic Australia is much better than the US in this respect(although
obviously my personal experience doesn't go past partime jobs while I'm
studying.).
When to the US, it is the federal gov't which created the corporate-capitalist
system far more than the state, the states would have not been able to engineer
such a system if the feds had been kept in their place, or it is unlikely
anyway. It has taken massive intervention since 1789 including opendoor
imperialism, the Brettonwoods institutions(which are little more than a way for
Western capitalists to dominate the world's economies.), corporate personhood
and welfare, guaranteed buyer schemes like the military-industrial complex and
so on. Did you know that congress' own 1980 report showed that in 1976 direct
subsidies to industry outweighed corporate profits?
Certainly we need to be more intelligent than those who paint the feds as always
bad and the states and locales as always good, we are talking of humanity and
there needs to be balance(although whether that requires a gov't the
size[geopraphically as well as other kinds.] of the US federal gov't is
obviously questionable.). But as regionalists and decentralists it is obvious
that we are going to feel that on balance the states and locales are better and
should have more power than the higher up levels and on balance we are supported
by the evidence.
One positive of the American system is that, outside the liberal coasts, the
elites and the media, there is a far more conscious and cohesive section of
social conservatives who, misled as they are in choosing allies and in how they
view economics, still maintain old fashioned values and committment to the key
smallscale associations like the family and a necessary idea of social cohesion
which under so much threat in Europe and which when undermined results in the
tensions and problems of social atomism and the clear scope for centralised
power to move in with the barriers and support of a healthy, strong society and
social bonds removed. Obviously corporate-capitalism and its necessary statism
will achieve this social disintegration almost as fast in the US, but at least
there is a more cohesive, conscious faction(because we exist in Britain and
Europe but lack group consciousness and cohesion.) which doesn't consider social
disintegration and atomism a good thing(the only difference between atomists
seems to be the divide between the right atomists who want powerful corporations
to provide for an atomised society and left atomists who want a powerful,
centralised state to provide for an atomised society.) unlike a lot of
Europeans(and liberal yanks.) who have come to celebrate the lack of any but the
most vague and fluffy social values, social authority and social bonds as a
positive development; as if an individual shorn of all his social and cultural
supports is likely to find freedom, contentment or peace."
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Two non-regionalist books worth reading for any British regionalists.
This is a post I made on the Wessex regionalist yahoo group and I thought it might be good to post it here as this blog has been dead for a while.
"I recently read two works on British politics, neither of them explicitly
regionalist or decentralist but which I still feel would be very educating for
any member of the party or anyone interested in British politics.
The first one was Anthony King's The British constitution:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Constitution-Anthony-King/dp/0199232326
This book obviously focuses on the British constitution and is mostly
descriptive with only the final chapter containing much thought on what should
be done or similar judgments and it is hard to pinpoint the authors own place in
the political spectrum although he is clearly enough pretty mainstream, probably
slightly left of centre. He describes basically a constitution that is a mess
and, particularly for those like us, almost despairingly perverse and yet
entrenched.
He shows that Europe is deeply entrenched in almost all levels of gov't and
society in Britain, that, often with the help of Europe, our judiciary have
become increasing activist, that local gov't is as he says little more than a
ghost and the house of lords is powerless and lacking any real sort of
legitimacy.
Interestingly King proposes that new, major reforms be shied away from in the
final chapter as causing probably more problems than they solve and although he
has some points about the lack of experience of Britons for a constitution
convention, I sure wouldn't want one right now it would probably entrench the
despotism of today and I can't see the cause of regionalism/decentralism or
liberty and restrained gov't having many advocates, he seems to be very
mainstream and not really too adverse to the New Labour ideal of gov't. Those
like us who have very different ideas on gov't would disagree with him very much
about this no doubt. His final chapter should not however take away from his
brilliant descriptive analysis of the current constitional situation of Britain,
or "Euro-Britain", today.
It shows us just what we are up against and that unlike some of the more naive
seem to suggest it will be very hard to achieve change and in some ways it is
very depressing for those like us who have set ourselves against a lot of the
poltical and social mainstream of today. But it should also have a galvanising
effect as it shows ho.w bad things have got and why we must continue to fight
the good fight against rampant centralisation, stealth surrender of more and
more sovereignty to Brussels, aggressive judicial activism and such.
I suggest all British regionalists should read this work.
The other work well worth reading is Anthony Sampson's Who runs this place? :
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Runs-This-Place-Anatomy/dp/0719565669
This work is much wider than King's focusing on all British political and
society rather than just the constitution and most importantly it is about the
balance of power in modern Britain.
Sampsons goes through all the familiar institutions of Britain and shows exactly
what position within the power structure of this nation they hold. His analysis
is very interesting, he shows the decline of the Commons and Lords and to a
lesser degree even the cabinet, he also shows the decline of political parties,
the palace, trade unions and academia and the rise or continued massive power of
the PM, bankers, Whitehall, pensions funds and above all the rich and the media.
He includes an interesting Venn-diagram at the beginning to show this.
Again this book is excellent in showing us just what we are up against
and how entrenched the organs of power, often unaccountable, are. Again though
some regionalists may find it depressing to me it is more educating and
galvisining whilst good for injecting a bit extra realism into the debate. We
are going to have to take on powerful interests in order to achieve anything,
for instance the media and the rich are immensely powerful(and not particularly
our allies at this time.) and any propaganda and action campaign will have to
somehow take this into account, particularly the media.
It, like King's work is excellent for any British regionalist. These two works
though not specifically aimed at us are very useful, indeed must reads, because
they help to illuminate the political, economic and social system we take and
knowing what we are up against, even if sometimes dismaying, is essential in my
opinion."
Originally posted at the Wessex regionalist and English confederation yahoo usergroups.
"I recently read two works on British politics, neither of them explicitly
regionalist or decentralist but which I still feel would be very educating for
any member of the party or anyone interested in British politics.
The first one was Anthony King's The British constitution:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Constitution-Anthony-King/dp/0199232326
This book obviously focuses on the British constitution and is mostly
descriptive with only the final chapter containing much thought on what should
be done or similar judgments and it is hard to pinpoint the authors own place in
the political spectrum although he is clearly enough pretty mainstream, probably
slightly left of centre. He describes basically a constitution that is a mess
and, particularly for those like us, almost despairingly perverse and yet
entrenched.
He shows that Europe is deeply entrenched in almost all levels of gov't and
society in Britain, that, often with the help of Europe, our judiciary have
become increasing activist, that local gov't is as he says little more than a
ghost and the house of lords is powerless and lacking any real sort of
legitimacy.
Interestingly King proposes that new, major reforms be shied away from in the
final chapter as causing probably more problems than they solve and although he
has some points about the lack of experience of Britons for a constitution
convention, I sure wouldn't want one right now it would probably entrench the
despotism of today and I can't see the cause of regionalism/decentralism or
liberty and restrained gov't having many advocates, he seems to be very
mainstream and not really too adverse to the New Labour ideal of gov't. Those
like us who have very different ideas on gov't would disagree with him very much
about this no doubt. His final chapter should not however take away from his
brilliant descriptive analysis of the current constitional situation of Britain,
or "Euro-Britain", today.
It shows us just what we are up against and that unlike some of the more naive
seem to suggest it will be very hard to achieve change and in some ways it is
very depressing for those like us who have set ourselves against a lot of the
poltical and social mainstream of today. But it should also have a galvanising
effect as it shows ho.w bad things have got and why we must continue to fight
the good fight against rampant centralisation, stealth surrender of more and
more sovereignty to Brussels, aggressive judicial activism and such.
I suggest all British regionalists should read this work.
The other work well worth reading is Anthony Sampson's Who runs this place? :
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Runs-This-Place-Anatomy/dp/0719565669
This work is much wider than King's focusing on all British political and
society rather than just the constitution and most importantly it is about the
balance of power in modern Britain.
Sampsons goes through all the familiar institutions of Britain and shows exactly
what position within the power structure of this nation they hold. His analysis
is very interesting, he shows the decline of the Commons and Lords and to a
lesser degree even the cabinet, he also shows the decline of political parties,
the palace, trade unions and academia and the rise or continued massive power of
the PM, bankers, Whitehall, pensions funds and above all the rich and the media.
He includes an interesting Venn-diagram at the beginning to show this.
Again this book is excellent in showing us just what we are up against
and how entrenched the organs of power, often unaccountable, are. Again though
some regionalists may find it depressing to me it is more educating and
galvisining whilst good for injecting a bit extra realism into the debate. We
are going to have to take on powerful interests in order to achieve anything,
for instance the media and the rich are immensely powerful(and not particularly
our allies at this time.) and any propaganda and action campaign will have to
somehow take this into account, particularly the media.
It, like King's work is excellent for any British regionalist. These two works
though not specifically aimed at us are very useful, indeed must reads, because
they help to illuminate the political, economic and social system we take and
knowing what we are up against, even if sometimes dismaying, is essential in my
opinion."
Originally posted at the Wessex regionalist and English confederation yahoo usergroups.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Book Review - Kirkpatrick Sale's Human Scale.
Having just reread Kirkpatrick Sale's Human Scale I feel compelled to review it as it is such as classic of decentralism. As has been said before it is ironically very large, over 500 pages, considering the title but this should not put off potential readers as it is crammed full of explanations, anecdotes, and a lot of information and statistics of great interest to any avid decentralist and most casual readers besides.
Sale splits the book up into several parts including one on the problems being inflicted on our centralised, large scale world and one each offering glimpses of decentralised solutions for the social, economic and political spheres. He covers areas such as decentralised government for various community levels, renewable, small scale energy production and workplace democracy.
The book is well written and enjoyable for a work so encyclopedic and packed full of information. The solutions offered are usually quite sensible and there is something for all stripes of libertarian and decentralist even is Sale tends to write from a broadly left of centre position.
One negative is that my copy was published in 1980 and hence many of the statistics and some of the information is getting somewhat dated, but that is more a call for new decentralist material and should not detract too much from the worth of Sale's book.
In summary it is an encyclopedic work of the Human Scale movement and despite being 30 years old is still a necessary read for all committed decentralists.
Sale splits the book up into several parts including one on the problems being inflicted on our centralised, large scale world and one each offering glimpses of decentralised solutions for the social, economic and political spheres. He covers areas such as decentralised government for various community levels, renewable, small scale energy production and workplace democracy.
The book is well written and enjoyable for a work so encyclopedic and packed full of information. The solutions offered are usually quite sensible and there is something for all stripes of libertarian and decentralist even is Sale tends to write from a broadly left of centre position.
One negative is that my copy was published in 1980 and hence many of the statistics and some of the information is getting somewhat dated, but that is more a call for new decentralist material and should not detract too much from the worth of Sale's book.
In summary it is an encyclopedic work of the Human Scale movement and despite being 30 years old is still a necessary read for all committed decentralists.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Where next for Labour?
It has been quite some time as I've been very busy but finally I've got around to writing a new post for my blog; a rumination on the future of the Labour party.
------------------------------
It seems clear now by that Labour is heading for a wipeout and we are facing the rather unpalatable prospect of Conservative party rule again. On the bright side though hopefully there is a good chance the New Labour project will die with Brown's government.
The question is then where should Labour go from there? Particularly of interest to us decentralists; where could it go in our direction?
Personally I think it needs to go backwards but not just to the old labour of the 70s when the communists struggled for control of the party with the moderates. No they need to go further back than that, even further than Atlee and the triumph of Welfare Statism. They need to go back to those intellectual fathers who once meant so much to the fledgling party, those British thinkers who once meant so much more than German communists and Thatcherites to Labour.
In particular they need to rediscover three key British Labour thinkers.
Firstly they need to rediscover the political and economic works of that radical Tory, John Ruskin. As strange as it seems now he was a major influence on the beginnings of the Labour party as well as on the likes of Tolstoy and Gandhi. According to the introduction of my copy of his seminal [I]Unto this last[/I] it was this book which, as Clement Atlee retells it, was the favourite political and economic influence on the first 30 or so Labour MPs to reach parliament who were given a survey to complete on the subject.
In his works on political economy Ruskin set out his views on such things as value, dignified work, the right organisation of labour and wealth. He makes some extremely keen insights and Labour would do well to recall his importance. He reminds us of the need for dignified work rather than drudgery, and for the need to make sure the power to direct labour, or wealth, is used and not abused. His work emphasises the need for a more decentralised and satisfying economy where the quality is more important than quantity and the satisfaction of the worker in daily toil is as important as the consumer's.
Secondly Labour really needs to go back to the works of R.H Tawney, a name not well known now but who was once an important stalwart in certain quarters of the British labour party. He was famous within it for such works as the Acquisitive society and Religion and the Rise of Capitalism . In these works and particularly in the Acquisitive society he stressed two important ideas as Peter Etherden has emphasised:
Tawney had two big ideas. The first was the idea that society should be organised for the performance of duties rather than the maintenance of rights. This led to the idea that industry and banking should be organized as professions. The other was intrinsic in his analysis of the nature and proper function of property and led to far-reaching and incisive attacks on 'functionless property' and 'divorcing ownership from use'...attacks that went far beyond the ideas of either Marx or Proudhon and echoed Gesell.
In Tawney's view his two big ideas were related. He begins his discussion of 'property and creative work' in 'The Acquisitive Society' with the words: 'The application of the principle that society should be organised upon the basis of functions...offers a standard for discriminating between those types of private property which are legitimate and those which are not'. Nowadays most economists have learnt to discriminate between 'goods' and 'bads' in our gross national products, but if Tawney had his way, they would also be distinguishing between property and 'improperty'. 'Property,' exclaimed Tawney, 'is not theft, but a good deal of theft becomes property'.
He emphasised the importance of linking rights to functions or duties and therefore called for the removal, gradual or quickly, of functionless property and the organisation of industry in order to produce things of quality and provide worker satisfaction and goverance. This links him with the old labour idea of more producer control while also emphasising the need for community input.
He was therefore an important decentralist thinker even if he wrote little specifically on scale as he realised the need for human scale control and satisfaction in dignified work and the Labour party which has so long been into corporatism and centralised bureaucratic control coulb learn a lot from this past master.
Finally Labour could learn a lot by rediscovering another key early influence; the guild socialist and Fabian thinker G.D.H Cole.
Cole is perhaps the most decentralist of all these three figures. He was a pluralist through and through. He believed that individuals needed greater control over their existences but also realised the key place of association in the life of individuals. He emphasised that many of the functions of the state and industry could be broken up and federative, decentralised, largly self-governing associations could take their place from the block to the workshop.
In many ways he shared the recognition of intermediate association common among many Conservatives from at least Burke onwards as well as pluralist liberals like De Toqueville and of course the social anarchists like Kropotkin.
His influence could be very positive on Labour by drawing their attention to the importance of intermediate associations particularly those that are decentralised, participartory and democratic and helping them to rediscover the importance of function in the goverment of state and industry.
So it can be seen that Labour has within its own history three thinkers that could push in a new, refreshing direction making it a proper alternative to the Conservatives and bringing back some decentralism and diversity into the bleakness of modern British politics.
Will it do it? Of course not.
------------------------------
It seems clear now by that Labour is heading for a wipeout and we are facing the rather unpalatable prospect of Conservative party rule again. On the bright side though hopefully there is a good chance the New Labour project will die with Brown's government.
The question is then where should Labour go from there? Particularly of interest to us decentralists; where could it go in our direction?
Personally I think it needs to go backwards but not just to the old labour of the 70s when the communists struggled for control of the party with the moderates. No they need to go further back than that, even further than Atlee and the triumph of Welfare Statism. They need to go back to those intellectual fathers who once meant so much to the fledgling party, those British thinkers who once meant so much more than German communists and Thatcherites to Labour.
In particular they need to rediscover three key British Labour thinkers.
Firstly they need to rediscover the political and economic works of that radical Tory, John Ruskin. As strange as it seems now he was a major influence on the beginnings of the Labour party as well as on the likes of Tolstoy and Gandhi. According to the introduction of my copy of his seminal [I]Unto this last[/I] it was this book which, as Clement Atlee retells it, was the favourite political and economic influence on the first 30 or so Labour MPs to reach parliament who were given a survey to complete on the subject.
In his works on political economy Ruskin set out his views on such things as value, dignified work, the right organisation of labour and wealth. He makes some extremely keen insights and Labour would do well to recall his importance. He reminds us of the need for dignified work rather than drudgery, and for the need to make sure the power to direct labour, or wealth, is used and not abused. His work emphasises the need for a more decentralised and satisfying economy where the quality is more important than quantity and the satisfaction of the worker in daily toil is as important as the consumer's.
Secondly Labour really needs to go back to the works of R.H Tawney, a name not well known now but who was once an important stalwart in certain quarters of the British labour party. He was famous within it for such works as the Acquisitive society and Religion and the Rise of Capitalism . In these works and particularly in the Acquisitive society he stressed two important ideas as Peter Etherden has emphasised:
Tawney had two big ideas. The first was the idea that society should be organised for the performance of duties rather than the maintenance of rights. This led to the idea that industry and banking should be organized as professions. The other was intrinsic in his analysis of the nature and proper function of property and led to far-reaching and incisive attacks on 'functionless property' and 'divorcing ownership from use'...attacks that went far beyond the ideas of either Marx or Proudhon and echoed Gesell.
In Tawney's view his two big ideas were related. He begins his discussion of 'property and creative work' in 'The Acquisitive Society' with the words: 'The application of the principle that society should be organised upon the basis of functions...offers a standard for discriminating between those types of private property which are legitimate and those which are not'. Nowadays most economists have learnt to discriminate between 'goods' and 'bads' in our gross national products, but if Tawney had his way, they would also be distinguishing between property and 'improperty'. 'Property,' exclaimed Tawney, 'is not theft, but a good deal of theft becomes property'.
He emphasised the importance of linking rights to functions or duties and therefore called for the removal, gradual or quickly, of functionless property and the organisation of industry in order to produce things of quality and provide worker satisfaction and goverance. This links him with the old labour idea of more producer control while also emphasising the need for community input.
He was therefore an important decentralist thinker even if he wrote little specifically on scale as he realised the need for human scale control and satisfaction in dignified work and the Labour party which has so long been into corporatism and centralised bureaucratic control coulb learn a lot from this past master.
Finally Labour could learn a lot by rediscovering another key early influence; the guild socialist and Fabian thinker G.D.H Cole.
Cole is perhaps the most decentralist of all these three figures. He was a pluralist through and through. He believed that individuals needed greater control over their existences but also realised the key place of association in the life of individuals. He emphasised that many of the functions of the state and industry could be broken up and federative, decentralised, largly self-governing associations could take their place from the block to the workshop.
In many ways he shared the recognition of intermediate association common among many Conservatives from at least Burke onwards as well as pluralist liberals like De Toqueville and of course the social anarchists like Kropotkin.
His influence could be very positive on Labour by drawing their attention to the importance of intermediate associations particularly those that are decentralised, participartory and democratic and helping them to rediscover the importance of function in the goverment of state and industry.
So it can be seen that Labour has within its own history three thinkers that could push in a new, refreshing direction making it a proper alternative to the Conservatives and bringing back some decentralism and diversity into the bleakness of modern British politics.
Will it do it? Of course not.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Why the Right should support Decentralism and Regionalism.
.It is my belief that a lot on the traditionally "rightwing" end of the political spectrum can gain a lot from a more decentralist and regionalist focus. Not all on the right will appreciate this angle but certainly those of a more anti-authoritarian bent have a lot to gain from it.
Many of the more anti-authoritarian right have a deep attachment to fundamental political liberties such as those of free association and free political speech. They tend to adopt a communitarian approach to liberty envisaging it as the intercises of the authority of the many social groupings and associations which shape the lives and personalities of men such as the family, local community, church etc etc.
Decentralism is generally a very positive thing for these small social bonds and for stopping them breaking down and leaving atomised individuals on the one hand and massive state and economic corporations on the other. By decentralising these social bonds they can be more real and personal to individuals as they really enter into his experiences and are not abstract and impersonal forces that dominate him from afar like modern bureaucracy but forces over which he has a great deal of insight and input like local parish meetings. This is important because the most positive and stable impacts of social forces are best achieved when they really connect with the lives of individuals concerned and when they feel them as personal social bonds not as the impersonal and abstract. It is in balance of many of these type of social groupings or bonds, with the addition of some personal independence, in which liberty is achieved.
Decentralism also helps in this regard by making the social bonds of men more just and moral and exerting pressure on them to act morally. Morality is in the end based on real human relationships and it is best encouraged by encouraging these in our social relationships rather than sterile and impersonal relationships.
Finally decentralism aids the intermediate associations between man and state, and hence his liberty, by making the bonds of their authorities more functional and efficient. It is only in the end those authorities and associations which perform a definite social function which will survive and efficient functionalism with personal meaning to the individual is best achieved through decentralism. This means that instead of welfare being administered by a far away body, who's functions the individual can barely assess, the different functions can be performed by bodies who's narrower functions he can really comprehend. This is also aided by usual increase in efficiency that decentralism brings. Much is talked of economies of scale but in fact generally beyond quite a moderate size the costs of a social organisation tend to rise geometrically whereas the benefits tend to rise only arithmetically, as Leopold Kohr once pointed out.
For this view of freedom and authority to work out it must be accepted that the social bonds and associations of men are not strengthened by elaborate hierarchies and inequalities but by making these intermediate groupings more functional, personal and real to the individual.
To a lot of the right tradition, history and identity are very important to any society. Decentralism can greatly strengthen these values. It strengthens traditions by making them more personal, local and real to the individual, they become part of the functional social relationships of his existence which gives life to the traditions and ensures their longevity. It can be seen by the accompanying decline of tradition and the local, personal social bonds that the sterile, uniforming of large, centralised organisations are not a great breeding for tradition. It also seems likely that social bonds or real, human relationships which give the individual a sense of control, oversight and participation in their institutions will mean traditions will not be oppressive due to the personal, moral elements involved. They will be more robust for this and be able to play their important part in the social system as social solidifiers, connecting people with their past and the collective wisdom and experience.
Decentralism also aids in giving the individual a definite social identity rather than leaving him a floating social atom. Again this is because it invigorates his social bonds giving him greater control and participation in them and attuning them better with his everyday life. It also will aid in better attuning him to his local, physical environment because of the increased local and regional integration and self-sufficiency which decentralism encourages. His greater control over institutions that shape his identity and his greater awareness of his environment will also make his identity more satisfying and non-alienating to him Identity is very important to the individual, the completely independent individual is a myth and it is our social bonds which have a large role in shaping us and it is important to make them healthy and diverse not sterile and uniform. Liberty, authority and identity are indivisibly bound together.
Decentralis will also be a great boost for real, economic liberty, particularly if applied to the economic as well as political spheres.
Capitalism, or what is today called capitalism, is in fact the enemy of economic liberty and property. It makes a few free and many servile due to its great seperation of labour and capitalst and control it allowance of the control of most capital by a relative few. Private property and private productive property is generally a benefity for society. It gives individuals and families an increased independence and better resistance to tyranny while enhancing healthy social bonds, but it can only perform this when it is well dispersed and it is functional. Or in other words when we have what thinkers like G.K Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc called a "distributive state". In capitalism the lack of real productive property ownership by many lessens both the independence of many and their ability to resist tyranny. It also denies them liberty and control over their productive activity, making work just a servile, unwanted activity performed mainly for material reasons whereas it should be done in a dignified manner where it can improve the individuals, his social bonds and his links with nature.
These and other qualities of capitalist lead to modern global capitalism and consumerism which have great negative effects on tradition, authority and identity due to their corrosive effect on intermediate associations such as kinship, local community, property etc etc which leads to atomisation, uniformity and the desire of individuals to find replacements for these necessary social functions and comforts in consumerism, corporate capitalism and the central state.
The best way to protect tradition, liberty, authority, property and identity from the twin evils of global capitalism and statism is through libertarianly and decentralistly encouraging distributism and also greater regional self-sufficiency and economic integration. This will incrrease the control of local institutions and individuals over their production, protect social bonds from global capitalist errosion and make private property and economic liberty more effective and real for individuals and families.
So as can be seen decentralism is also good for the right, or at least the anti-authoriitarian right. It promotes liberty by strengthening the multiple small social groupings in whose intercises, as robert Nisbet like to put it, our liberty is located. It also aids tradition and identity by making them more functional and real. And finally economic decentralisation and distributism can increase real and effective economic liberty and private property and help tradition, liberty, authority and identity against the ravages of global capitalism and statism.
Rightwingers interested in decentralism should check out the work of authors such as Robert Nisbet, Russell Kirk, Albert.J. Nock, Edmund Burke, Kropotkin, Murray Rothbard, Hayek, The Southern Agrarians, Henry George, Lamennais and many others.
Many of the more anti-authoritarian right have a deep attachment to fundamental political liberties such as those of free association and free political speech. They tend to adopt a communitarian approach to liberty envisaging it as the intercises of the authority of the many social groupings and associations which shape the lives and personalities of men such as the family, local community, church etc etc.
Decentralism is generally a very positive thing for these small social bonds and for stopping them breaking down and leaving atomised individuals on the one hand and massive state and economic corporations on the other. By decentralising these social bonds they can be more real and personal to individuals as they really enter into his experiences and are not abstract and impersonal forces that dominate him from afar like modern bureaucracy but forces over which he has a great deal of insight and input like local parish meetings. This is important because the most positive and stable impacts of social forces are best achieved when they really connect with the lives of individuals concerned and when they feel them as personal social bonds not as the impersonal and abstract. It is in balance of many of these type of social groupings or bonds, with the addition of some personal independence, in which liberty is achieved.
Decentralism also helps in this regard by making the social bonds of men more just and moral and exerting pressure on them to act morally. Morality is in the end based on real human relationships and it is best encouraged by encouraging these in our social relationships rather than sterile and impersonal relationships.
Finally decentralism aids the intermediate associations between man and state, and hence his liberty, by making the bonds of their authorities more functional and efficient. It is only in the end those authorities and associations which perform a definite social function which will survive and efficient functionalism with personal meaning to the individual is best achieved through decentralism. This means that instead of welfare being administered by a far away body, who's functions the individual can barely assess, the different functions can be performed by bodies who's narrower functions he can really comprehend. This is also aided by usual increase in efficiency that decentralism brings. Much is talked of economies of scale but in fact generally beyond quite a moderate size the costs of a social organisation tend to rise geometrically whereas the benefits tend to rise only arithmetically, as Leopold Kohr once pointed out.
For this view of freedom and authority to work out it must be accepted that the social bonds and associations of men are not strengthened by elaborate hierarchies and inequalities but by making these intermediate groupings more functional, personal and real to the individual.
To a lot of the right tradition, history and identity are very important to any society. Decentralism can greatly strengthen these values. It strengthens traditions by making them more personal, local and real to the individual, they become part of the functional social relationships of his existence which gives life to the traditions and ensures their longevity. It can be seen by the accompanying decline of tradition and the local, personal social bonds that the sterile, uniforming of large, centralised organisations are not a great breeding for tradition. It also seems likely that social bonds or real, human relationships which give the individual a sense of control, oversight and participation in their institutions will mean traditions will not be oppressive due to the personal, moral elements involved. They will be more robust for this and be able to play their important part in the social system as social solidifiers, connecting people with their past and the collective wisdom and experience.
Decentralism also aids in giving the individual a definite social identity rather than leaving him a floating social atom. Again this is because it invigorates his social bonds giving him greater control and participation in them and attuning them better with his everyday life. It also will aid in better attuning him to his local, physical environment because of the increased local and regional integration and self-sufficiency which decentralism encourages. His greater control over institutions that shape his identity and his greater awareness of his environment will also make his identity more satisfying and non-alienating to him Identity is very important to the individual, the completely independent individual is a myth and it is our social bonds which have a large role in shaping us and it is important to make them healthy and diverse not sterile and uniform. Liberty, authority and identity are indivisibly bound together.
Decentralis will also be a great boost for real, economic liberty, particularly if applied to the economic as well as political spheres.
Capitalism, or what is today called capitalism, is in fact the enemy of economic liberty and property. It makes a few free and many servile due to its great seperation of labour and capitalst and control it allowance of the control of most capital by a relative few. Private property and private productive property is generally a benefity for society. It gives individuals and families an increased independence and better resistance to tyranny while enhancing healthy social bonds, but it can only perform this when it is well dispersed and it is functional. Or in other words when we have what thinkers like G.K Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc called a "distributive state". In capitalism the lack of real productive property ownership by many lessens both the independence of many and their ability to resist tyranny. It also denies them liberty and control over their productive activity, making work just a servile, unwanted activity performed mainly for material reasons whereas it should be done in a dignified manner where it can improve the individuals, his social bonds and his links with nature.
These and other qualities of capitalist lead to modern global capitalism and consumerism which have great negative effects on tradition, authority and identity due to their corrosive effect on intermediate associations such as kinship, local community, property etc etc which leads to atomisation, uniformity and the desire of individuals to find replacements for these necessary social functions and comforts in consumerism, corporate capitalism and the central state.
The best way to protect tradition, liberty, authority, property and identity from the twin evils of global capitalism and statism is through libertarianly and decentralistly encouraging distributism and also greater regional self-sufficiency and economic integration. This will incrrease the control of local institutions and individuals over their production, protect social bonds from global capitalist errosion and make private property and economic liberty more effective and real for individuals and families.
So as can be seen decentralism is also good for the right, or at least the anti-authoriitarian right. It promotes liberty by strengthening the multiple small social groupings in whose intercises, as robert Nisbet like to put it, our liberty is located. It also aids tradition and identity by making them more functional and real. And finally economic decentralisation and distributism can increase real and effective economic liberty and private property and help tradition, liberty, authority and identity against the ravages of global capitalism and statism.
Rightwingers interested in decentralism should check out the work of authors such as Robert Nisbet, Russell Kirk, Albert.J. Nock, Edmund Burke, Kropotkin, Murray Rothbard, Hayek, The Southern Agrarians, Henry George, Lamennais and many others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
