Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States
Parameters ^ | 1998 | Ralph Peters

Posted on 09/04/2003 7:29:11 AM PDT by Voice in your head

© 1998 Ralph Peters

When you leave the classroom or office and go into the world, you see at first its richness and confusions, the variety and tumult. Then, if you keep moving and do not quit looking, commonalties begin to emerge. National success is eccentric. But national failure is programmed and predictable. Spotting the future losers among the world's states becomes so easy it loses its entertainment value.

In this world of multiple and simultaneous revolutions--in technology, information, social organization, biology, economics, and convenience--the rules of international competition have changed. There is a global marketplace and, increasingly, a global economy. While there is no global culture yet, American popular culture is increasingly available and wickedly appealing--and there are no international competitors in the field, only struggling local systems. Where the United States does not make the rules of international play, it shapes them by its absence.

The invisible hand of the market has become an informal but uncompromising lawgiver. Globalization demands conformity to the practices of the global leaders, especially to those of the United States. If you do not conform--or innovate--you lose. If you try to quit the game, you lose even more profoundly. The rules of international competition, whether in the economic, cultural, or conventional military fields, grow ever more homogeneous. No government can afford practices that retard development. Yet such practices are often so deeply embedded in tradition, custom, and belief that the state cannot jettison them. That which provides the greatest psychological comfort to members of foreign cultures is often that which renders them noncompetitive against America's explosive creativity--our self-reinforcing dynamism fostered by law, efficiency, openness, flexibility, market discipline, and social mobility.

Traditional indicators of noncompetitive performance still apply: corruption (the most seductive activity humans can consummate while clothed); the absence of sound, equitably enforced laws; civil strife; or government attempts to overmanage a national economy. As change has internationalized and accelerated, however, new predictive tools have emerged. They are as simple as they are fundamental, and they are rooted in culture. The greater the degree to which a state--or an entire civilization--succumbs to these "seven deadly sins" of collective behavior, the more likely that entity is to fail to progress or even to maintain its position in the struggle for a share of the world's wealth and power. Whether analyzing military capabilities, cultural viability, or economic potential, these seven factors offer a quick study of the likely performance of a state, region, or population group in the coming century.

The Seven Factors

These key "failure factors" are:

Restrictions on the free flow of information.
The subjugation of women.
Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
Domination by a restrictive religion.
A low valuation of education.
Low prestige assigned to work.

Zero-Sum Knowledge

The wonderfully misunderstood Clausewitzian trinity, expressed crudely as state-people-military, is being replaced by a powerful new trinity: the relationship between the state, the people, and information. In the latter phases of the industrial age, the free flow of quality information already had become essential to the success of industries and military establishments. If the internationalizing media toppled the Soviet empire, it was because that empire's battle against information-sharing had hollowed out its economy and lost the confidence of its people. When a sudden flood of information strikes a society or culture suffering an information deficit, the result is swift destabilization. This is now a global phenomenon.

Today's "flat-worlders" are those who believe that information can be controlled. Historically, information always equaled power. Rulers and civilizations viewed knowledge as a commodity to be guarded, a thing finite in its dimensions and lost when shared. Religious institutions viewed knowledge as inflammatory and damnable, a thing to be handled carefully and to advantage, the nuclear energy of yesteryear. The parallel to the world public's view of wealth is almost exact--an instinctive conviction that information is a thing to be gotten and hoarded, and that its possession by a foreign actor means it has been, by vague and devious means, robbed from oneself and one's kind. But just as wealth generates wealth, so knowledge begets knowledge. Without a dynamic and welcoming relationship with information as content and process, no society can compete in the post-industrial age.

Information-controlling governments and knowledge-denying religions cripple themselves and their subjects or adherents. If America's streets are not paved with gold, they are certainly littered with information. The availability of free, high-quality information, and a people's ability to discriminate between high- and low-quality data, are essential to economic development beyond the manufacturing level. Whether on our own soil or abroad, those segments of humanity that fear and reject knowledge of the world (and, often, of themselves) are condemned to failure, poverty, and bitterness.

The ability of most of America's work force to cope psychologically and practically with today's flood of data, and to cull quality data from the torrent, is remarkable--a national and systemic triumph. Even Canada and Britain cannot match it. Much of Japan's present stasis is attributable to that nation's struggle to make the transition from final-stage industrial power to information-age society. The more regulated flow of information with which Japan has long been comfortable is an impediment to post-modernism. While the Japanese nation ultimately possesses the synthetic capability to overcome this difficulty, its structural dilemmas are more informational and psychological than tangible--although the tangible certainly matters--and decades of educational reform and social restructuring will be necessary before Japan returns for another world-championship match.

In China, the situation regarding the state's attempt to control information and the population's inability to manage it is immeasurably worse. Until China undergoes a genuine cultural revolution that alters permanently and deeply the relationship among state, citizen, and information, that country will bog down at the industrial level. Its sheer size guarantees continued growth, but there will be a flattening in the coming decades and, decisively, China will have great difficulty transitioning from smokestack growth to intellectual innovation and service wealth.

China, along with the world's other defiant dictatorships, suffers under an oppressive class structure, built on and secured by an informational hierarchy. The great class struggle of the 21st century will be for access to data, and it will occur in totalitarian and religious-regime states. The internet may prove to be the most revolutionary tool since the movable-type printing press. History laughs at us all--the one economic analyst who would understand immediately what is happening in the world today would be a resurrected German "content provider" named Marx.

For countries and cultures that not only restrict but actively reject information that contradicts governmental or cultural verities, even a fully industrialized society remains an unattainable dream. Information is more essential to economic progress than an assured flow of oil. In fact, unearned, "found" wealth is socially and economically cancerous, impeding the development of healthy, enduring socioeconomic structures and values. If you want to guarantee an underdeveloped country's continued inability to perform competitively, grant it rich natural resources. The sink-or-swim poverty of northwestern Europe and Japan may have been their greatest natural advantage during their developmental phases. As the Shah learned and Saudi Arabia is proving, you can buy only the products, not the productiveness, of another civilization.

States that censor information will fail to compete economically, culturally, and militarily in the long run. The longer the censorship endures, the longer the required recovery time. Even after the strictures have been lifted, information-deprived societies must play an almost-hopeless game of catch-up. In Russia, it will take at least a generation of genuine informational freedom to facilitate an economic takeoff that is not founded hollowly upon resource extraction, middleman profits, and the looting of industrial ruins. Unique China will need even longer to make the next great leap forward from industrial to informational economy--we have at least half a century's advantage. Broad portions of the planet may never make it. We will not need a military to deal with foreign success, but to respond to foreign failure--which will be the greatest source of violence in coming decades.

If you are looking for an easy war, fight an information-controlling state. If you are looking for a difficult investment, invest in an information-controlling state. If you are hunting a difficult conflict, enter the civil strife that arises after the collapse of an information-controlling state. If you are looking for a good investment, find an emerging or "redeemed" state unafraid of science, hard numbers, and education.

A Woman's Place

Vying with informational abilities as a key factor in the reinvigoration of the US economy has been the pervasive entry of American women into the educational process and the workplace. When the stock market soars, thank Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the suffragettes, not just their beneficiary, Alan Greenspan. After a century and a half of struggle by English and American women, the US economy now operates at a wartime level of human-resource commitment on a routine basis.

Despite eternally gloomy headlines, our country probably has the lowest wastage rate of human talent in the world. The United States is so chronically hungry for talent that we drain it from the rest of the planet at a crippling pace, and we have accepted that we cannot squander the genius of half our population. Even in Europe, "over-skilling," in which inherent and learned abilities wither in calcified workplaces, produces social peace at the cost of cultural and economic lethargy, security at the price of mediocrity. The occasional prime minister notwithstanding, it is far rarer to encounter a female executive, top professional, or general officer in that mythologized, "more equitable" Europe than in the United States. Life in America may not be fair, but neither is it stagnant. What we lose in security, we more than compensate for in opportunity.

While Europe sleepwalks toward a 35-hour work-week, we are moving toward the 35-hour day. The intense performance of our economy would be unattainable without the torrent of energy introduced by competitive female job candidates. American women revolutionized the workforce and the workplace. Future social and economic historians will probably judge that the entry of women into our workforce was the factor that broke the stranglehold of American trade unions and gave a new lease on life to those domestic industries able to adapt. American women were the Japanese cars of business labor relations: better, cheaper, dependable, and they defied the rules. Everybody had to work harder and smarter to survive, but the results have been a spectacular recovery of economic leadership and soaring national wealth.

Change that men long resisted and feared in our own country resulted not only in greater competition for jobs, but in the creation of more jobs, and not in the rupture of the economy, but in its assumption of imperial dimensions (in a quirk of fate, already privileged males are getting much richer, thanks to the effects of feminism's triumph on the stock market). Equality of opportunity is the most profitable game going, and American capitalism has realized the wisdom of becoming an evenhanded consumer of skills. Despite serious exclusions and malignant social problems, we are the most efficient society in history. When Europeans talk of the dignity of the working man, they increasingly mean the right of that man to sit at a desk doing nothing or to stand at an idling machine. There is a huge difference between just being employed and actually working.

The math isn't hard. Any country or culture that suppresses half its population, excluding them from economic contribution and wasting energy keeping them out of the school and workplace, is not going to perform competitively with us. The standard counterargument heard in failing states is that there are insufficient jobs for the male population, thus it is impossible to allow women to compete for the finite incomes available. The argument is archaic and wrong. When talent enters a work force, it creates jobs. Competition improves performance. In order to begin to compete with the American leviathan and the stronger of the economies of Europe and the Far East, less-developed countries must maximize their human potential. Instead, many willfully halve it.

The point isn't really the fear that women will steal jobs in Country X. Rather, it's a fundamental fear of women--or of a cultural caricature of women as incapable, stupid, and worrisomely sexual. If, when you get off the plane, you do not see men and women sitting together in the airport lounge, put your portfolio or treaty on the next flight home.

It is difficult for any human being to share power already possessed. Authority over their women is the only power many males will ever enjoy. From Greece to the Ganges, half the world is afraid of girls and gratified by their subjugation. It is a prescription for cultural mediocrity, economic failure--and inexpressible boredom. The value added by the training and utilization of our female capital is an American secret weapon.

Blaming Foreign Devils

The cult of victimhood, a plague on the least-successful elements in our own society, retards the development of entire continents. When individuals or cultures cannot accept responsibility for their own failures, they will repeat the behaviors that led to failure. Accepting responsibility for failure is difficult, and correspondingly rare. The cultures of North America, Northern Europe, Japan, and Korea (each in its own way) share an unusual talent for looking in the mirror and keeping their eyes open. Certainly, there is no lack of national vanity, prejudice, subterfuge, or bad behavior.

But in the clutch we are surprisingly good at saying, "We did it, so let's fix it." In the rest of the world, a plumbing breakdown implicates the CIA and a faltering currency means George Soros--the Hungarian-born American billionaire, fund manager, and philanthropist--has been sneaking around in the dark. Recent accusations of financial connivance made against Mr. Soros and then against the Jews collectively by Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir only demonstrated that Malaysia's ambitions had gotten ahead of its cultural capacity to support them. Even if foreign devils are to blame--and they mostly are not--whining and blustering does not help. It only makes you feel better for a little while, like drunkenness, and there are penalties the morning after.

The failure is greater where the avoidance of responsibility is greater. In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, oil money has masked cultural, social, technical, and structural failure for decades. While the military failure of the regional states has been obvious, consistent, and undeniable, the locals sense--even when they do not fully understand--their noncompetitive status in other spheres as well. It is hateful and disorienting to them. Only the twin blessings of Israel and the United States, upon whom Arabs and Persians can blame even their most egregious ineptitudes, enable a fly-specked pretense of cultural viability.

On the other hand, Latin America has made tremendous progress. Not long ago, the gringos were to blame each time the lights blinked. But with the rise of a better-educated elite and local experience of economic success, the leadership of Latin America's key states has largely stopped playing the blame game. Smaller states and drug-distorted economies still chase scapegoats, but of the major players only Mexico still indulges routinely in the transfer of all responsibility for its problems to Washington, D.C.

Family Values

After the exclusion of women from productive endeavors, the next-worst wastage of human potential occurs in societies where the extended family, clan, or tribe is the basic social unit. While family networks provide a safety net in troubled times, offering practical support and psychological protection, and may even build a house for you, they do not build the rule of law, or democracy, or legitimate corporations, or free markets. Where the family or clan prevails, you do not hire the best man (to say nothing of the best woman) for the job, you hire Cousin Luis. You do not vote for the best man, you vote for Uncle Ali. And you do not consider cease-fire deals or shareholder interests to be matters of serious obligation.

Such cultures tend to be peasant-based or of peasant origin, with the attendant peasant's suspicion of the outsider and of authority. Oligarchies of landed families freeze the pattern in time. There is a preference for a dollar grabbed today over a thousand dollars accrued in the course of an extended business relationship. Blood-based societies operate under two sets of rules: one, generally honest, for the relative; and another, ruthless and amoral, for deals involving the outsider. The receipt of money now is more important than building a long-term relationship. Such societies fight well as tribes, but terribly as nations.

At its most successful, this is the system of the Chinese diaspora, but that is a unique case. The Darwinian selection that led to the establishment and perpetuation of the great Chinese merchant families (and village networks), coupled with the steely power of southern China's culture, has made this example an exception to many rules. More typical examples of the Vetternwirtschaft system are Iranian businesses, Nigerian criminal organizations, Mexican political and drug cartels, and some American trade unions.

Where blood ties rule, you cannot trust the contract, let alone the handshake. Nor will you see the delegation of authority so necessary to compete in the modern military or economic spheres. Information and wealth are assessed from a zero-sum worldview. Corruption flourishes. Blood ties produce notable family successes, but they do not produce competitive societies.

That Old-Time Religion

Religion feeds a fundamental human appetite for meaning and security, and it can lead to powerful social unity and psychological assurance that trumps science. Untempered, it leads to xenophobia, backwardness, savagery, and economic failure. The more intense a religion is, the more powerful are its autarchic tendencies. But it is impossible to withdraw from today's world.

Limiting the discussion to the sphere of competitiveness, there appear to be two models of socio-religious integration that allow sufficient informational and social dynamism for successful performance. First, religious homogeneity can work, if, as in the case of Japan, religion is sufficiently subdued and malleable to accommodate applied science. The other model--that of the United States--is of religious coexistence, opening the door for science as an "alternative religion." Americans have, in fact, such wonderful plasticity of mind that generally even the most vividly religious can disassociate antibiotic drugs from the study of Darwin and the use of birth-control pills from the strict codes of their churches. All religions breed some amount of schism between theology and social practice, but the American experience is a marvel of mental agility and human innovation.

The more dogmatic and exclusive the religion, the less it is able to deal with the information age, in which multiple "truths" may exist simultaneously, and in which all that cannot be proven empirically is inherently under assault. We live in a time of immense psychological dislocation--when man craves spiritual certainty even more than usual. Yet our age is also one in which the sheltering dogma cripples individuals and states alike. The price of competitiveness is the courage to be uncertain--not an absence of belief, but a synthetic capability that can at once accommodate belief and its contradictions. Again, the United States possesses more than its share of this capability, while other societies are encumbered by single dominant religions as hard, unbending--and ultimately brittle--as iron. Religious toleration also means the toleration of scientific research, informational openness, and societal innovation. "One-true-path" societies and states are on a path that leads only downward.

For those squeamish about judging the religion of another, there is a shortcut that renders the same answer on competitiveness: examine the state's universities.

Learning Power and Earning Power

The quality of a state's universities obviously reflects local wealth, but, even more important, the effectiveness of higher education in a society describes its attitudes toward knowledge, inquiry-versus-dogma, and the determination of social standing. In societies imprisoned by dogmatic religions, or in which a caste or class system predetermines social and economic outcomes, higher education (and secular education in general) often has low prestige and poor content. Conversely, in socially mobile, innovative societies, university degrees from quality schools appear indispensable to the ambitious, the status-conscious, and the genuinely inquisitive alike.

There are many individual and some cultural exceptions, but they mostly prove the rule. Many Indians value a university education highly--not as social confirmation, but as a means of escaping a preassigned social position. The privileged of the Arabian Peninsula, on the other hand, regard an American university degree (even from a booby-prize institution) as an essential piece of jewelry, not unlike a Rolex watch. In all cultures, there are individuals hungry for self-improvement and, sometimes, for knowledge. But, statistically, we can know a society, and judge its potential, by its commitment to education, with universities as the bellwether. Not all states can afford their own Stanford or Harvard but, within their restraints, their attempts to educate their populations still tell us a great deal about national priorities and potential. Commitment and content cannot fully substitute for a wealth of facilities, but they go a long way, whether we speak of individuals or continents.

Any society that starves education is a loser. Cultures that do not see inherent value in education are losers. This is even true for some of our own sub-cultures--groups for whom education has little appeal as means or end--and it is true for parts of Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Arab world. A culture that cannot produce a single world-class university is not going to conquer the world in any sphere.

America's universities are triumphant. Once beyond the silly debates (or monologues) in the Liberal Arts faculties, our knowledge industry has no precedent or peer. Even Europe's most famous universities, on the Rhine or the Seine, are rotting and overcrowded. We attract the best faculty, the best researchers, and the best student minds from the entire world. This is not a trend subject to reversal; rather, it is self-reinforcing.

Yet there is even more to American success in education than four good years at the "College of Musical Knowledge." The United States is also far ahead of other states in the flexibility and utility of its educational system. Even in Europe, the student's fate is determined early--and woe to the late bloomer. You choose your course, or have it chosen for you, and you are more or less stuck with it for life. In Germany, long famous for its commitment to education, the individual who gains a basic degree in one subject and then jumps to another field for graduate work is marked as a Versager, a failure. In the US system, there are second, third, and fourth chances. This flexible approach to building and rebuilding our human capital is a tremendous economic asset, and it is compounded by the trend toward continuing education in mid-life and for seniors.

A geriatric revolution is occurring under our noses, with older Americans "younger" than before in terms of capabilities, interests, and attitudes--and much more apt to continue contributing to the common good. We are headed for a world in the early decades of the next century when many Americans may hit their peak earning years not in their fifties, but in their sixties--then seventies. This not only provides sophisticated talent to the labor pool, but maintains the worker as an asset to, rather than a drain upon, our nation's economy. For all the fuss about the future of social security, we may see a profound attitudinal change in the next generation, when vigorous, high-earning seniors come to regard retirement at today's age as an admission of failure or weakness, or just as a bore. At the same time, more 20-year-old foreigners than ever will have no jobs at all.

Investments in our educational system are "three-fers": they are simultaneously investments in our economic, social, and military systems. Education is our first line of defense. The rest of the world can be divided into two kinds of societies, states, and cultures--those that struggle and sacrifice to educate their members, and those that do not. Guess who is going to do better in the hyper-competitive 21st century?

Workers of the World, Take a Nap!

Related to, but not quite identical with, national and cultural attitudes toward education is the attitude toward work. Now, everyone has bad days at the office, factory, training area, or virtual workplace, and the old line, "It's not supposed to be fun--that's why they call it `work,'" enjoys universal validity. Yet there are profoundly different attitudes toward work on this planet. While most human beings must work to survive, there are those who view work as a necessary evil and dream of its avoidance, and then there are societies in which people hit the lottery and go back to their jobs as telephone linemen. In many subsets of Latin American culture, for example, there are two reasons to work: first to survive, then to grow so wealthy that work is no longer necessary. It is a culture in which the possession of wealth is not conceptually related to a responsibility to work. It is the get-rich-quick, big-bucks-from-Heaven dream of some of our own citizens. The goal is not achievement but possession, not accomplishment but the power of leisure.

Consider any culture's heroes. Generally, the more macho or male-centric the culture, the less emphasis there will be on steady work and achievement, whether craftsmanship or Nobel Prize-winning research, and the more emphasis there will be on wealth and power as the sole desirable end (apart, perhaps, from the occasional religious vocation). As national heroes, it's hard to beat Bill Gates. But even a sports star is better than a major narco-trafficker.

Generally, societies that do not find work in and of itself "pleasing to God and requisite to Man," tend to be highly corrupt (low-education and dogmatic-religion societies also are statistically prone to corruption, and, if all three factors are in play, you may not want to invest in the local stock exchange or tie your foreign policy to successful democratization). The goal becomes the attainment of wealth by any means.

On the other hand, workaholic cultures, such as that of North America north of the Rio Grande, or Japan, South Korea, and some other East Asian states, can often compensate for deficits in other spheres, such as a lack of natural resources or a geographical disadvantage. If a man or woman has difficulty imagining a fulfilling life without work, he or she probably belongs to a successful culture. Work has to be seen as a personal and public responsibility, as good in and of itself, as spiritually necessary to man. Otherwise, the society becomes an "evader" society. Russia is strong, if flagging, on education. But the general attitude toward work undercuts education. When the characters in Chekhov's "Three Sisters" blather about the need to find redemption through work, the prescription is dead on, but their lives and their society have gone so far off the rails that the effect is one of satire. States and cultures "win" just by getting up earlier and putting in eight honest hours and a little overtime.

If you are seeking a worthy ally or business opportunity, go to a mid-level government office in Country X an hour before the local lunchtime. If everybody is busy with legitimate work, you've hit a winner. If there are many idle hands, get out.

Using this Knowledge to Our Advantage

Faced with the complex reality of geopolitics and markets, we must often go to Country X, Y, or Z against our better judgment. Despite failing in all seven categories, Country X may have a strategic location that makes it impossible to ignore. Country Y may have an internal market and regional importance so significant that it would be foolish not to engage it, despite the risks. Country Z may have resources that make a great deal of misery on our part worth the sufferance. Yet even in such situations, it helps to know what you are getting into. Some countries would devour investments as surely as they would soldiers. Others just demand savvy and caution on our part. Yet another might require a local ally or partner to whom we can make ourselves indispensable. Whether engaging militarily or doing business in another country, it gives us a tremendous advantage if we can identify four things: their image of us, their actual situation, their needs, and the needs they perceive themselves as having (the four never connect seamlessly).

There are parallel dangers for military men and businessmen in taking too narrow a view of the challenges posed by foreign states. An exclusive focus on either raw military power or potential markets tells us little about how people behave, believe, learn, work, fight, or buy. In fact, the parallels between military and business interventions grow ever greater, especially since these form two of the legs of our new national strategic triad, along with the export of our culture (diplomacy is a minor and shrinking factor, its contours defined ever more rigorously by economics).

The seven factors discussed above offer a pattern for an initial assessment of the future potential of states that interest us. Obviously, the more factors present in a given country, the worse off it will be--and these factors rarely appear in isolation. Normally, a society that oppresses women will do it under the aegis of a restrictive dominant religion that will also insist on the censorship of information. Societies lacking a strong work ethic rarely value education.

In the Middle East, it is possible to identify states where all seven negatives apply; in Africa, many countries score between four and seven. Countries that formerly suffered communist dictatorships vary enormously, from Poland and the Czech Republic, with only a few rough edges, to Turkmenistan, which scores six out of seven. Latin America has always been more various than Norteamericanos realized, from feudal Mexico to dynamic, disciplined Chile.

Ultimately, our businesses have it easier than our military in one crucial respect: business losses are counted in dollars, not lives. But the same cultural factors that will shape future state failure and spawn violent conflicts make it difficult to do business successfully and legally. We even suffer under similar "rules of engagement," whether those placed on the military to dictate when a soldier may shoot or the legal restraints under which US businesses must operate, imposing a significant disadvantage vis-à-vis foreign competitors.

As a final note, the biggest pitfall in international interactions is usually mutual misunderstanding. We do not understand them, but they do not understand us either--although, thanks to the Americanization of world media, they imagine they do. From mega-deals that collapsed because of Russian rapacity to Saddam's conviction that the United States would not fight, foreign counterparts, rivals, and opponents have whoppingly skewed perceptions of American behaviors. In the end, military operations and business partnerships are like dating--the advantage goes to the player who sees with the most clarity.

We are heading into a turbulent, often violent new century. It will be a time of great dangers and great opportunities. Some states will continue to triumph, others will shift their relative positions, many will fail. The future will never be fully predictable, but globalization means the imposition of uniform rules by the most powerful actors. They are fundamentally economic rules. For the first time, the world is converging toward a homogeneous system, if not toward homogenous benefits from that system. The potential of states is more predictable within known parameters than ever before.

We have seen the future, and it looks like us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters (USA, Ret.) was assigned, prior to his recent retirement, to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, where he was responsible for future warfare. Career and personal travels have taken him to 45 countries. He has published and lectured widely on military and international concerns. His seventh novel, The Devil's Garden, was recently released by Avon Books. This is his tenth article for Parameters.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: civilizations; nations; ralphpeters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last
I did a search and did not find this posted. Brilliant for its insight and brevity.
1 posted on 09/04/2003 7:29:11 AM PDT by Voice in your head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Ralph Peters ping.
2 posted on 09/04/2003 7:35:40 AM PDT by hchutch (The National League needs to adopt the designated hitter rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
I use to really like the futurist writers, incidentally, you may like "Sovereign Individual" by James Dale Davidson.

But I think it naive to dismiss two millennia of learning on self-government and the concept of liberty to pursue a utopian end-- free trade in a world of fiat currency for example. While the author captures the most optimistic of Yankee Commercial Empire theories dating back to the founding of the nation, his belief that America is no more than a place to work and earn money ignores so many of the elements that makes life an enjoyable experience. In that sense, his dichotomy is like a reverse antagonist/protagonist Marxism that ignores an entire piece of American culture, the less class conscious tradition of the South as if we have nothing to learn from simply living and spending time with our wives and family.

In his dichotomy, he is actually opposite Robert Reich who in the futurist spectrum would be a labeled a conservative, and this fellow a liberal.

3 posted on 09/04/2003 7:38:47 AM PDT by JohnGalt (Vichycons-- Supporting Endless War Abroad; Appeasing the Welfare State at Home, Since 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
This is a superb article/op ed/thesis or whatever.

Thanks for posting it.

I have bookmarked it.
4 posted on 09/04/2003 7:43:36 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Bookmark for later.
5 posted on 09/04/2003 7:45:14 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
"While there is no global culture yet, American popular culture is increasingly available and wickedly appealing--and there are no international competitors in the field, only struggling local systems"

Hasn't this guy heard of Islamisism?
6 posted on 09/04/2003 7:46:15 AM PDT by The Radical Capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER; PhilDragoo; Miss Marple; Howlin; Dog; Dog Gone; William McKinley; Shermy; ...
Take a few minutes to read this long but excellent look at how to determine the losers in today's world.

The key to this is the free flow of information that we have in America and in particular on Free Republic.

Please ping this article to your FR buddies.
7 posted on 09/04/2003 7:49:19 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
"I did a search and did not find this posted. Brilliant for its insight and brevity."

I must concur. I would put this at or near the top of a list of "best articles on Free Republic".

A true gem---it should be required introductory reading at "Foggy Bottom" (aka the "State" Department). They seem to have less of a grasp of the "seven factors" than any other department of our government.

8 posted on 09/04/2003 7:54:03 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Save for later read.
9 posted on 09/04/2003 7:57:24 AM PDT by Sergio (Thinking of something witty to say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
This is a brilliant article. Also is relevant to failed segments of our own society.
10 posted on 09/04/2003 7:58:22 AM PDT by tkathy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch; Texas_Dawg
At some point in time last year, Col. Peters was excoriated on this website for having the audacity for saying that women do a nice job in the military. He's another RINO, y'know.
11 posted on 09/04/2003 8:01:00 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: okie01; Dog Gone; OWK; Congressman Billybob; bvw; Fred Mertz; Sabertooth
ping
12 posted on 09/04/2003 8:01:26 AM PDT by dirtboy (www.ArmorforCongress.com - because lawyers with a clue are rarer than truth-telling Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Fine article:

Countries with large Muslim populations and especially living under Islamic Law are currently and in the future (France??) imperiled.

America is triumphant because of our science and technology.

13 posted on 09/04/2003 8:07:00 AM PDT by Helms ("I Want My MTV" (More Televised Vulgarity))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Pretty thoughtful.

I could pick at some issues though.

I expect to see certain FReepers lauding this in total and some like me with a few questions.
14 posted on 09/04/2003 8:08:32 AM PDT by wardaddy (deforestation now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Bookmarked for reading later.
15 posted on 09/04/2003 8:11:07 AM PDT by LTCJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LTCJ
bump for later read
16 posted on 09/04/2003 8:15:32 AM PDT by umgud (gov't has more money than it needs, but never as much as it wants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
That being me, right?

;)

17 posted on 09/04/2003 8:16:55 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
He's another RINO, y'know.

Actually, he has been known to vote Democrat in the past. Saw an interview with him recently where he discussed some of the political shifts he has undergone since 9/11. I would not have called him a liberal prior to that, but I suspect if he was registered in a party at all prior to 2001, that party had a D in its name.

He is a rather good analyst, and he is not shy about discussing his own mistakes. That tends to be somewhat career-limiting, but is the sign of a good intel analyst.

18 posted on 09/04/2003 8:21:35 AM PDT by AzSteven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
At some point in time last year, Col. Peters was excoriated on this website for having the audacity for saying that women do a nice job in the military. He's another RINO, y'know.

One other thing along these women/RINO/restrictive state lines that you fail to realize in your simple reasoning, Chancellor, is that the South has zero to do with its problems. Northern Yankees and the FedGuvs are entirely to blame for anything that might possibly be wrong with the Deep South. You better learn yourself up sumthin fierce if ya ain't want to be soundin' like a dimwit around these here parts any more.

19 posted on 09/04/2003 8:22:15 AM PDT by Texas_Dawg (You didn't get laid off... you didn't get outsourced or offshored... you got fired. Get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hchutch; Chancellor Palpatine
Consider any culture's heroes. Generally, the more macho or male-centric the culture, the less emphasis there will be on steady work and achievement, whether craftsmanship or Nobel Prize-winning research, and the more emphasis there will be on wealth and power as the sole desirable end (apart, perhaps, from the occasional religious vocation). As national heroes, it's hard to beat Bill Gates. But even a sports star is better than a major narco-trafficker.

Remember the celebration when Cal Ripken, Jr. broke the record for longest streak of games played?

A guy I rode the bus with commented on it the next day. He said that Cal's record was the kind we need to hold up to our kids--that success isn't built on one day's flashy performance or getting a big signing bonus, but on years of hard work and self-discipline.

20 posted on 09/04/2003 8:22:39 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
bump
21 posted on 09/04/2003 8:23:15 AM PDT by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

He lost me with his snooty and patronizing dismissals of religion and the family. Creeped me out, actually.

His myopic view of the ramifications of a having large percentage of a nation's women employed full-time also has a Brave New World taint. I'm not suggesting that women shouldn't have the freedom to work, but lingering post-feminist drivel has made that a frequently less-informed decision than it should have been, for many women.

22 posted on 09/04/2003 8:24:54 AM PDT by Sabertooth (Arnold would let Illegals stay... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971733/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Today's "flat-worlders" are those who believe that information can be controlled.

U. S. intellectual property laws are leading full-steam-ahead down this path.

23 posted on 09/04/2003 8:27:06 AM PDT by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Naturally.

I don't dismiss the entire article. In fact, I probably accept 80% of it as pretty good insight.

and 80% is a lot.
24 posted on 09/04/2003 8:27:48 AM PDT by wardaddy (deforestation now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Those are the areas he lost me in too.

I got a Toffler feeling to parts of it and his optimism is not shared by me.
25 posted on 09/04/2003 8:33:03 AM PDT by wardaddy (deforestation now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
From USS Clueless, Steven Den Beste:

The diseased culture of our enemy suffers from all seven of the deep flaws Ralph Peters identifies as condemning nations to failure in the modern world. Peters makes a convincing case that there is a correlation approaching unity between the extent to which a nation or culture suffers from these flaws and its inability to succeed in the 21st century.

He lists them as follows:

And carrying all seven of these, our enemy is trying to compete in the 21st century footrace with both feet cast into buckets of concrete. They are profoundly handicapped by the very values that they hold most dear and that they believe make them what they are.

The nations and the peoples within the zone of our enemy's culture are complete failures. Their economies are disasters. They make no contribution to the advance of science or engineering. They make no contribution to art or culture. They have no important diplomatic power. They are not respected. Most of their people are impoverished and miserable and filled with resentment, and those who are not impoverished are living a lie.

They hate us. They hate us because our culture is everything theirs is not. Our culture is vibrant and fecund; our economies are successful. Our achievements are magnificent. Our engineering and science are advancing at breathtaking speed. Our people are fat and happy (relatively speaking). We are influential, we are powerful, we are wealthy. "We" are the western democracies, but in particular "we" are the United States, which is the most successful of the western democracies by a long margin. America is the most successful nation in the history of the world, economically and technologically and militarily and even culturally.

Our culture as exported is condemned as being lowbrow in many places, but it's hard to deny how pervasive and influential it is. Baywatch was total dreck, but it was also the most successful syndicated television program around the world in history, racking up truly massive audiences each week.

Our culture is seductive on every level; those elsewhere who are exposed to it find it attractive. It isn't always "high culture"; but some of it is, and with the world revolution in telecommunications it's impossible for anyone in the world to avoid seeing it and being exposed to it.

Nor can anyone ignore our technology, which is definitely not lowbrow, nor our scientific achievements.

We're everything that they think they should be, everything they once were, and by our power and success we throw their modern failure into stark contrast, especially because we've gotten to where we are by doing everything their religion says is wrong. We've deeply sinned, and yet we've won. They are forced to compare their own accomplishments to ours because we are the standard of success, and in every important way they come up badly short. In most of the contests it's not just that our score is higher, it's that their score is zero.

They have nothing whatever they can point to that can save face and preserve their egos. In every practical objective way we are better than they are, and they know it.

And since this is a "face" culture, one driven by pride and shame, that is intolerable. Nor is it something we can easily redress. The oft-proposed idea of increasing aid and attempting to eliminate poverty may well help in South America and sub-Saharan Africa, but it will not defuse the hatred of our Arab/Islamic enemies, for it is our success that they hate, not the fruits of that success.

It isn't that they also want to be rich. Indeed, the majority of the most militant members of al Qaeda came from Saudi Arabia, out of comfortable existence. What they want is to stay with their traditional culture and for it to be successful, and that isn't possible. We can make them rich through aid, but we can't make them successful because their failure is not caused by us, but by the deep flaws in their culture. Their culture cannot succeed. It is too deeply and fundamentally crippled.

Everything they think they know says that they should be successful. They once were successful, creating and ruling a great empire, with a rich culture. God says they will be successful; it's right there in the Qur'an. God lays on them the duty to dominate the world, but they can't even dominate their own lands any longer. They face a profound crisis of faith, and it can only resolve one of three ways.

First, the status quo can continue. They can continue to fail, sit in their nations, and accept their plight. By clinging to their culture and their religion they may be ideologically pure, but they will have to continue to live with the shame of being totally unable to compete. Solution one: they can stagnate.

The second thing they can do is to accept that their culture and their religion are actually the problem. They can recognize that they will have to liberalize their culture in order to begin to achieve. They can embrace the modern world, and embrace western ways at least in part. They can break the hold of Islamic teachings; discard Sharia; liberate their women; start to teach science and engineering in their schools instead of the study of the Qur'an; and secularize their societies. Solution two: they can reform.

Some Arab nations have begun to do this, and to the extent that they have they have also started to succeed. But this is unacceptable to the majority; it is literally sinful. It is heresy. What good does it do to succeed in the world if, by so doing, you condemn your soul to hell?

Which leaves only one other way: become relatively competitive by destroying all other cultures which are more capable. You level the playing field by tearing down all the mountains rather than filling in the valleys; you make yourself the tallest by shooting everyone taller than you are. Solution three: they can lash out, fight back.

It's vitally important to understand that this is the reason they're fighting back. It's not to gain revenge for some specific action in the past on our part. It isn't an attempt to influence our foreign policy. Their goal is our destruction, because they can't keep hold on what they have and still think of themselves as being successful as long as we exist and continue to outperform them.

al Qaeda grew out of this deepening resentment and frustration within the failed Arab culture. It is the first manifestation of solution three, but as long as the deep disease continues in the culture of our enemy, it won't be the last. Its initial demands to the US were a bit surprising, and not very well known. (And obscured by the fact that as their struggle continued recently, they kept changing their stated demands in hopes of attracting allies from elsewhere in the Arab sphere.)

The original demand was for a complete cessation of contact between America and Arabia. Not just a pullout of our soldiers from holy Arab soil, but total isolation so that the people of greater Arabia would no longer be exposed in any way to us or our culture or our values. No television, no radio, no music, no magazines and books, no movies. No internet. And that isn't possible; you can't go backward that way.

But it's interesting that this shows their real concern. If they're no longer exposed to us, they are no longer shamed by comparing their failure to our success, and no longer seduced by it and tempted to discard their own culture and adopt ours.

Solution three manifests, and will continue to manifest, in many ways. Another way it manifests is in a new Arab imperialism, an ambition in some quarters to recreate the Arab empire and by so doing to regain political greatness. Arab nationalism doesn't directly spring from Islam, but it does spring from this deep frustration and resentment caused by the abject failure of the enemy culture, and it's most prominent practitioner is Saddam Hussein.

Both al Qaeda's terrorist attacks, and Saddam's attempts to incorporate other Arab nations into Iraq, spring from the same deep cause. But when I say that al Qaeda and Saddam are not the real enemy, it's because they both arise due to a deeper cause which is the true enemy. If we were to stamp out al Qaeda as a viable organization and reduce it to an occasional annoyance, and remove Saddam's WMDs no matter how, by conquest or inspections, someone else somewhere else would spring up and we would again be in peril. We cannot end this war by only treating the symptoms of al Qaeda and Saddam, though they must be dealt with as part of that process. This war is actually a war between the modern age and traditional Arab culture, and as long as they stagnated and felt resentment quietly, it wasn't our war.

It became our war when al Qaeda started bringing it to our nation. With a series of successively more deadly attacks culminating in the attacks in NYC and Washington last year, it became clear that we in the United States could no longer ignore it, and had to start working actively to remove the danger to us. We didn't pick this war, it picked us, but we can't turn away from it. If we ignore it, it will keep happening.

But the danger isn't al Qaeda as such, though that's the short term manifestation of the danger. This war will continue until the traditional crippled Arab culture is shattered. It won't end until they embrace reform or have it forced on them. Until a year ago, we were willing to be patient and let them embrace it slowly. Now we have no choice: we have to force them to reform because we cannot be safe until they do.

And by reform I mean culturally and not politically. The reform isn't just abjuration of weapons of mass destruction. It isn't just promising not to attack any longer. What they're going to have to do is to fix all seven of Ralph Peters' problems, and once they've done so, their nations won't be recognizable.

First, they will seem much more western. Second, they'll start to succeed, for as Peters notes, nations which fix these problems do become competitive. What he's describing isn't symptoms, it's deep causes.

We're facing a 14th century culture engaged in a 14th century war against us. The problem is that they are armed with 20th century weapons, which may eventually include nuclear weapons. And they embrace a culture which honors dying in a good cause, which means that deterrence can't be relied on if they get nuclear weapons.

Why is it that the US is concerned about Iraq getting nukes when we don't seem to be as concerned about Pakistan or India or Israel? Why are we willing to invade Iraq to prevent it from getting nukes, but not Pakistan to seize the ones it developed? It's because those nations don't embrace a warrior culture where suicide in a good cause, even mass death in a good cause, is considered acceptable. (Those kinds of things are present in Pakistan but don't rule there as yet.)

It's certainly not the case that the majority of those in the culture which is our enemy would gladly die. But many of those who make the decisions would be willing to sacrifice millions of their own in exchange for millions of ours, especially the religious zealots. If such people get their hands on nuclear weapons, then our threat of retaliation won't prevent them from using them against us, or threatening to do so. Which is why we can't let it happen. The chance of Israeli or Pakistani or Indian nukes being used against us is acceptably small. If Arabs get them, then eventually one will be used against us. It's impossible to predict who will do it, or when, or where, or what the proximate reason will be, but it's inevitable that it will happen. The only way to prevent it is to keep Arabs from getting nukes, and that is why Iraq is now critically important and why time is running out.

It's wrong to say that this would be "irrational" on their part. It is a reasoned decision based on an entirely different set of axioms, leading to a result totally unacceptable to us. But they're not insane or irrational. Even though they're totally rational, deterrence ultimately can't stop them from using nuclear weapons against us.

All major wars started by someone else that you eventually come to win start with a phase where you try to consolidate the situation, to stop the enemy's advance. Then you go onto the offensive, take the war to him, and finish it.

Afghanistan and Iraq are the two parts of the consolidation phase of this war. al Qaeda had to be crippled and Saddam has to be destroyed in order to gain us time and adequate safety to go onto the offensive, and to begin the process which will truly end this war: to destroy Wahhabism, to shatter Islamic fundamentalism, to completely break the will of the Arabs and to totally shame them.

Because they are a shame/pride culture, that latter may seem paradoxical. But the reality is that we cannot win this by making them proud, for they are not a stupid people and they actually have nothing to be proud of. We can't make them proud because we can't give them anything to be proud of; they need accomplishments of their own for pride, and their culture prevents that. The only hope here is to make them so ashamed that they finally face and accept the thing they are trying to hide from in choosing to fight back: their culture is a failure, and the only way they can succeed is to discard it and change.

It may sound strange to say, but what we have to do is to take the 14th century culture of our enemies and bring it into the 17th century. Once we've done that, then we can work on bringing them into the 21st century, but that will be much easier.

But they've got to accept their own failure, personally and nationally and culturally. That is the essential first step. They've got to accept that the cause of their failure is their own culture, and that we're not. And they've got to accept that the only way to succeed is to change. That will be a difficult fight, and it's going to take decades. Along the way it's going to be necessary to remove many governments which come to power and yet again try to embrace the past and become militant, nationalistic, fundamentalist, or again attempt to try to develop nuclear weapons.

Saddam has to go not merely because of his programs for development of WMDs. He also has to go because he manifests Arab nationalism and imperialism. Even if he actually consents to disarm, he and the Baathist party must be destroyed. The reason that Iraq's nuclear weapon program is critical is that it means we have to do so immediately; it makes it urgent. But removing their program to develop nuclear weapons doesn't remove the deeper reason to destroy Saddam and the Baathists, for they are part of the deeper pathology which must be excised.

After the consolidation phase of this war is complete, with the destruction of the Taliban and occupation and reform of Iraq, then we will go onto the offensive and begin to strike at the deeper core of the problem. Part of that will be to force reform on Saudi Arabia, through a combination of diplomacy, persuasion, subversion, propaganda and possibly even military force.

What this shows is just how deeply I disagree with many who oppose this war. I am forthrightly proposing what some might call cultural genocide, for example, which instantly puts me on the Pomo/Tranzi blacklist. The existing Arab culture which is the source of this war is a total loss. It must be shattered, annihilated, leaving behind no more traces in the Arab lands than the Samurai left in Japan or the mounted knights left in Europe.

I am forthrightly stating that it will be necessary to destabilize the entire middle east, which puts me exactly counter to European foreign policy. No bandaid will do. It isn't possible to patch things up with diplomacy because the rot runs too deep. Diplomacy now would be treating the symptoms and not the true disease.

I am forthrightly stating that no amount of aid to the poor will stop the aggression against us, which will anger liberals everywhere. It isn't our wealth they hate, it's our accomplishments. The only way we can appease them is to ourselves become failures, and that is a price I'm not willing to pay.

And I claim that the US bears essentially no blame for the fundamental source of their anger towards us. They don't hate us because of our foreign policy. They don't ultimately hate us because of past mistakes. They don't hate what we do or what we have done. They hate what we are, and what we show them that they are not. They hate our accomplishments and our capabilities because we force them to see their own lack of accomplishments and their incompetence and impotence.

And I'm saying that the US must do this, with help or without, because the US will be the continuing target of Arab solution number 3 as long as this resentment continues to boil, which it will do as long as Arab culture is not shattered and reformed. We will accept help from others if it's truly helpful, but we'll do it alone if we have to. (Or we will try and fail.)

We will be the primary target because we're the most successful. It's as simple as that. And that means that this ultimately will be a unilateral war by us; we're the ones with the most on the line. If the Arabs eventually do get nukes, the first one they use will either be against Israel or against us. It won't be against Europe, and if more conventional terrorist attacks continue, the most damaging ones will be directed against us. We will pay most of the price for this war, in staggering amounts of money, in losses on the field of battle, and in death and destruction at home, and therefore any talk of unified multilateral international action by a coalition of equals is nonsense. The other nations won't risk as much and won't pay as much and won't contribute as much and therefore deserve less say in what will happen.

In the mean time, now that al Qaeda has broken the ice, there will be further terrorist attacks against us as long as this war continues. They may be made by al Qaeda itself, or they may be made by other groups who will spring up. We can't totally prevent that until we've removed the true cause of those attacks: Arab cultural failure. Nothing short of that will stop the attacks. They're part of the setbacks which always accompany any major war. We'll do our best to foil such attacks, but inevitably some will succeed.

And those who don't understand the true issues will inevitably point to such attacks as proof that our campaign is a failure, that by our aggressiveness we raised further terrorist groups against us, that we should abandon the war and try appeasement, concession, aid, humanistic solutions.

And they'll be wrong, because they don't understand the real reason why we're being attacked and therefore why such approaches won't truly remove the source of the grievance..

They won't stop hating us until they become successful and begin to achieve on their own. We can't make them successful with material gifts, including aid to their poor. We can only make them successful with cultural changes, and they will resist that. Now that we've been attacked, we are ourselves compelled to force them to accept those cultural changes, because that is the only way short of actual genocide to remove the danger to ourselves. This war will end when they change, but not before.

26 posted on 09/04/2003 8:36:26 AM PDT by crv16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
A guy I rode the bus with commented on it the next day. He said that Cal's record was the kind we need to hold up to our kids--that success isn't built on one day's flashy performance or getting a big signing bonus, but on years of hard work and self-discipline.
20 -poo-


How pitiful.. A coupla lo0sers on a bus, pontificating on the joys of drudgery.
27 posted on 09/04/2003 8:39:31 AM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; dirtboy

After the exclusion of women from productive endeavors, the next-worst wastage of human potential occurs in societies where the extended family, clan, or tribe is the basic social unit.

He's got to say the second, to justify his stupidity on the first.

Child-rearing is the most productive endeavor.

Additionally, employees work harder when providing for a family. That's good for productivity, but higher productivity isn't the supreme goal of a worker.

I heard somewhere that people on their deathbeds rarely say they wish they'd spent more time at the office.

The other model--that of the United States--is of religious coexistence, opening the door for science as an "alternative religion."
It doesn't take a Luddite to know that this isn't now, nor has it ever been, the appropriate role of science.
Americans have, in fact, such wonderful plasticity of mind that generally even the most vividly religious can disassociate antibiotic drugs from the study of Darwin and the use of birth-control pills from the strict codes of their churches. All religions breed some amount of schism between theology and social practice, but the American experience is a marvel of mental agility and human innovation.

I've never seen America's precipitous slide into degeneracy glossed over in quite so cheerily a fashion.


28 posted on 09/04/2003 8:52:43 AM PDT by Sabertooth (Arnold would let Illegals stay... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971733/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
"He lost me with his snooty and patronizing dismissals of religion and the family. Creeped me out, actually."

Whoa there. He did neither. What he said was cultures "dominated by family/clan relationships" and/or "a restrictive religion". That is a whole different animal than denigrating family and/or religion as institutions.

ANYTHING in too big a dose is bad. Christianity in the pre-Reformation "bad old days" of Europe was a bad deal, too (not as bad as Islam, to be sure, but still hell on those living under it).

29 posted on 09/04/2003 8:54:23 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Very good article. The following comment caught my eye, considering what has been occurring in Iraq:
"If you are looking for an easy war, fight an information-controlling state. If you are looking for a difficult investment, invest in an information-controlling state. If you are hunting a difficult conflict, enter the civil strife that arises after the collapse of an information-controlling state."

30 posted on 09/04/2003 9:02:30 AM PDT by William McKinley (Oh! My nose!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
When I read that, I too thought of Iraq and Afghanistan.
31 posted on 09/04/2003 9:05:07 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
After the exclusion of women from productive endeavors, the next-worst wastage of human potential occurs in societies where the extended family, clan, or tribe is the basic social unit.

He's got to say the second, to justify his stupidity on the first.

Congratulations. You don't understand what he's talking about.

The issue he's discussing is that, in societies dominated by extended family/clan/tribal relationships, your social relationships are utterly dominated by your bloodline.

You and I are likely willing to risk death, if it becomes necessary, to save the lives of our wives, children, and immediate blood relations. But we're also willing to risk death, if necessary, to save close friends who are NOT blood relatives. It's a product of our culture.

In the societies he's describing, you have an utter duty to die for your fifth cousin, seven times removed, who you've never met and would absolutely despise if you ever did, and to kill your best friend if a remote relative in his extended family offends a remote relation of yours.

In clan/tribal societies, you have an absolute duty to hide your relative who just raped and murdered a little girl, if that girl wasn't from your tribe or clan.

In this culture, suppose (for the sake of argument) that your brother comes in and says: "Saber, you gotta hide me, I just raped and murdered the Larson girl."

How fast would you call the cops?

The MeChA motto is probably the purest expression of this tribalist mentality you'd find in America.

32 posted on 09/04/2003 9:07:24 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head; rohry; Wyatt's Torch; arete; meyer; DarkWaters; STONEWALLS; ...
More typical examples of the Vetternwirtschaft system are Iranian businesses, Nigerian criminal organizations, Mexican political and drug cartels, and some American trade unions.

Thinking of unions as a tribe under a warlord, helps to explain alot of stupid economic decisions they have made.

33 posted on 09/04/2003 9:08:30 AM PDT by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Damn good post!
34 posted on 09/04/2003 9:09:14 AM PDT by wardaddy (deforestation now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Actually, I read this article a few months ago on FR. But it's a good thought-provoking article, so it is worth repeating.
35 posted on 09/04/2003 9:21:40 AM PDT by DeweyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; Wonder Warthog

There are babies, and there is bathwater.

One can have societies without theocracies, yet also without establishing science as an "alternative religion."
One can have the rule of law while retaining the family as the basic social unit.
One can have women in the workplace without ignoring the risks of large numbers of latch-key children.

Flag me when you see a Peters' rewrite that acknowledges the above.

Until then, I'll take his coda as it's written...

The future will never be fully predictable, but globalization means the imposition of uniform rules by the most powerful actors. They are fundamentally economic rules. For the first time, the world is converging toward a homogeneous system, if not toward homogenous benefits from that system. The potential of states is more predictable within known parameters than ever before.

We have seen the future, and it looks like us.

I'm a bit skeptical that Peters has a good handle on what "we" look like, and what aspects of our portrait ought not to be emulated.

Furthermore, globalization fetishists, like Peters here, generally fail to acknowledge that the cultural exchange runs two ways.

36 posted on 09/04/2003 9:29:22 AM PDT by Sabertooth (Arnold would let Illegals stay... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971733/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
A bump for a later read...
37 posted on 09/04/2003 9:34:29 AM PDT by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

A bump for a later read...
38 posted on 09/04/2003 9:34:29 AM PDT by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth; Goetz_von_Berlichingen; Ohioan
I'm bookmarking.

Damn Saber, Goetz_von_Berlichingen and Ohioan usually hold my esteem (for what that's worth) for spot on writing but you have acquitted yourself well on this thread.

You wrote it even better than I could think it.
39 posted on 09/04/2003 9:35:05 AM PDT by wardaddy (deforestation now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
"One can have societies without theocracies, yet also without establishing science as an "alternative religion." One can have the rule of law while retaining the family as the basic social unit. One can have women in the workplace without ignoring the risks of large numbers of latch-key children."

Please point out to me anywhere in the article where Peters contradicts any of those points, or even suggests that those possibilites (enthronement of science as religion, other than the family as the basic family unit, or "latch-key" children) are desirable.

You're "reading" stuff that isn't there.

40 posted on 09/04/2003 9:59:49 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
VERY INCITEFUL-thanks for posting
41 posted on 09/04/2003 10:03:30 AM PDT by y2k_free_radical (ESSE QUAM VIDERA-to be rather than to seem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
You're "reading" stuff that isn't there.

One of us is. Peters ignored the downsides of some of the things he lauds.

Actually, what I didn't read is what wasn't there.


42 posted on 09/04/2003 10:04:36 AM PDT by Sabertooth (Arnold would let Illegals stay... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971733/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Bump for later.

brevity?
43 posted on 09/04/2003 10:17:34 AM PDT by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; MeeknMing; JohnHuang2; floriduh voter; PhiKapMom
Historically, information always equaled power. Rulers and civilizations viewed knowledge as a commodity to be guarded, a thing finite in its dimensions and lost when shared.

Thanks a million for the ping....what a fantastic article.

44 posted on 09/04/2003 10:20:08 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
I have gone back to it several times today to re read parts of it.

The article really describes the war that we have against the Islamofacist/nazis and their Islamokazis.

Then, it describes the cultural war that we are fighting here in the states with the left and their bed buddies the pseudo conservatives. Daily we see the lies from both of these scum bag groups posted as the great truth. Then the reality of their lies and spin are posted by the good Freepers. Even their Yellowcake Scam to electronically lynch President Bush fell short after the exposure of their lies and spin on this non issue.
45 posted on 09/04/2003 10:28:41 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
The article really describes the war that we have against the Islamofacist/nazis and their Islamokazis.

Then, it describes the cultural war that we are fighting here in the states with the left and their bed buddies the pseudo conservatives.

Great minds think alike. That is EXACTLY what I was thinking when I read it.

46 posted on 09/04/2003 10:38:12 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Women won WWII. While the Nazis and Japs had their auxillary work done by starving slaves and prisoners, ours was done by motivated, bright, strong women who had the time of their lives. We kicked their ass.
47 posted on 09/04/2003 11:02:51 AM PDT by johnb838 (Deconstruct the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I agree with you that Sabertooth has nailed the major error in the essayist's social values.

I came over to this thread, because you pinged me, and frankly, I do not have the respectful attitude that most have towards the writer. He does, indeed, show a very unconservative system of social values; but he does not stop with merely suggesting that some values may interfere with material progress. He embraces an absurd form of neo-Marxist interpretation of history.

One cannot stress the point often enough, that Culture does not create people, people create their own culture. A nation's culture reflects the aptitudes and personalities of its people. American culture has always reflected our people, not the other way around. The idea that you can remake a nation by artificially altering its culture--the grotesque experiments in Bolshevik Russia, Nazi Germany & Pol Pots Cambodia, come instantly to mind--needs to be laid to rest. It is the single most hideous error of socialist thinking. And whatever merits this article displays at some points, it seems almost calculated to promote another round of such madness.

That is really only a round about way for me to suggest that the writer has confused cause and effect, throughout the article--in addition to demonstrating where he stands in the fight to temper materialism with philosophy and a deeper understanding of the nature of the pursuit of happiness.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

48 posted on 09/04/2003 11:19:40 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
One cannot stress the point often enough, that Culture does not create people, people create their own culture.

How true.

And whatever merits this article displays at some points, it seems almost calculated to promote another round of such madness.

The negative points do dilute the positive by their own strength.

49 posted on 09/04/2003 11:28:47 AM PDT by wardaddy (deforestation now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
This is a brilliant article. Also is relevant to failed segments of our own society.

Absolutely. The application to aspects of our own society are worth considering.

Great piece.

50 posted on 09/04/2003 11:34:21 AM PDT by radiohead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson