Author Archives: dmhart

Rewriting and Resinging Australia Day

Posted on by

Further research into the origins and meaning of the national anthem, “Advance Australia Fair” (henceforth AAF), is revealing some interesting facts.

The Author: Peter Dodds McCormick (c. 1834-1916)

The author Peter Dodds McCormick (c. 1834-1916) (his nom de plume was “Amicus” – so shouldn’t this be “nom de tune”?) was a Scottish immigrant who came to Australia in 1855 and worked as a joiner / carpenter, then in a number of high schools in Sydney ( St. Mary’s National School and Plunkett St. Public School), and was active in the Presbyterian church and choirs (as music director of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of NSW), hence his interest in writing patriotic songs for the colony of NSW and then later the Commonwealth of Australia. He may have written around 30 patriotic and Scottish songs during his life.

Jim Fletcher in the NDB describes McCormick as “ultra-Scottish and ultra-patriotic” who liked to organise massed choirs such as “the 10,000 children and 1000 teachers at the 1880 Robert Raikes Sunday school centenary demonstration, and 15,000 schoolchildren at the laying of the foundation stone of Queen Victoria’s statue.” 1

Graeme Skinner tells us that AAF was “first sung at the St Andrew’s Day concert of the Sydney Highland Society on 30 November 1878.” McCormick later made some revisions to the words and this revised version was sung by a choir of 10,000 at the inauguration of the Commonwealth which was held in Centennial Park, in Sydney. The tune was also played by “massed bands” at the naming of the Federal capital celebrations in Canberra (Fletcher).2

A statue of McCormick in the grounds of The Scots Church in Margaret Street, Sydney [from the “Urban Ambler”].

The Difficult Birth of a National Anthem

AAF only became Australia’s official national anthem after a tortuous political process. A new anthem was sought by Gough Whitlam’s Labour Party government in 1972 as part of its “It’s Time” campaign to remake Australia along more progressive lines. The Australia Council for the Arts took submissions (receiving about 1400) and recommended a short list of three to go to a referendum – Banjo Paterson’s folk song “Waltzing Matilda” (1895), the South Australian poet Caroline Carleton’s “Song for Australia” (1859), and McCormick’s “Advance Australia Fair” (1878). A referendum was held in 1974 and AAF won with 51.4% of the vote.

The next government led by Malcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party was staunchly monarchist and so ditched the results of the referendum and returned to “God Save the Queen” in 1976. However, opposition to this old anthem persisted and another poll was held in 1977, this time including the monarchist anthem as one of the choices, with a repetition of the result from the earlier poll. The figures were:3

1977 poll (6,767,000):

Advance Australia Fair – 2 940 854 (43%)
Waltzing Matilda – 1 918 206 (28%)
God Save the Queen – 1 257 341 (18%)
Song of Australia – 652 858 (10%)

After Preferences (6,768,000):

Advance Australia Fair – 4 415 642 (65%)
Waltzing Matilda – 2 353 617 (35%)

After a considerable delay the Governor General of Australia, Sir Ninian Steven, officially proclaimed “Advance Australia Fair” as the national anthem on 19 April 1984.

Rewriting the Contested Lyrics

The cultural values of the Anglo-Scottish community in Australia in the late 19thC are clearly visible in the two songs I have come across, AAF and “Awake Australia” (see my earlier post on this, and have been pointed out by critics many times. These include:

  • the assumption that Australia was open and unoccupied territory which was there for the taking (the “Crown” permitting of course, since it owned it all as a resulting Cook’s claiming in 1770). So much for the Lockean principle of ownership stemming from the first comer “mixing one’s labour” with the land and making it “theirs”
  • that the land was the preserve of the immigrants from England, Scotland (like McCormick), and Ireland, and no others (as no one else is mentioned)
  • the pro-British Empire sentiments, such as boasting that “Britannia rules the waves” and the glorification of martial values – the new Aussies would “rouse to arms like sires of yore” and that Britain’s “sons” still kept a “British soul” and would defend their “native strand” (i.e. their sandy beaches) from any foreign foes (Russian, French, Chinese?)
  • the meaning of the word “fair” in the refrain. Did it mean “fair” as in “reasonable” or “fair” as in fair-skinned? It is open to interpretation.

The words to AAF have been changed many times over the decades in order to suit the changing needs of its listeners (and presumably the singers as well) to the point where it has become very politicized.

Firstly, by McCormick himself on the eve of Federation in 1901. For example he mentions the “Commonwealth”.

Then by the selection committee when the Labor government was looking for a replacement for “God Save the Queen”. When the song was proclaimed as the “national” anthem the following changes had been made to McCormick’s verse:

  • “Australia’s sons, let us rejoice” was changed to “Australians all, let us rejoice”
  • “To make our youthful Commonwealth” was changed to “To make this Commonwealth of ours”
  • “For loyal sons beyond the seas” was changed to “For those who’ve come across the sea”

The original five verses were also cut down to only two (only the 1st and 3rd verses were kept). Those verses cut were no. 2 which was very pro-conquest and Empire; no. 4 which explicitly mentioned only Brits, Scots, and Irish as settlers; and no. 5 which was bellicose and male-oriented. The complete song is as follows with the kept verses 1 and 3 in bold:

Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in Nature’s gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history’s page, let every stage
Advance Australia fair!
In joyful strains then let us sing,
“Advance Australia fair!”

When gallant Cook from Albion sail’d,
To trace wide oceans o’er,
True British courage bore him on,
Till he landed on our shore.
Then here he raised Old England’s flag,
The standard of the brave;
With all her faults we love her still,
“Brittannia rules the wave!”
In joyful strains then let us sing
“Advance Australia fair!”

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross,
We’ll toil with hearts and hands;
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands;
For those who’ve come across the seas
We’ve boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing
“Advance Australia fair!”

While other nations of the globe
Behold us from afar,
We’ll rise to high renown and shine
Like our glorious southern star;
From England, Scotia, Erin’s Isle,
Who come our lot to share,
Let all combine with heart and hand
To advance Australia fair!
In joyful strains then let us sing
“Advance Australia fair!”

Shou’d foreign foe e’er sight our coast,
Or dare a foot to land,
We’ll rouse to arms like sires of yore
To guard our native strand;
Brittannia then shall surely know,
Beyond wide ocean’s roll,
Her sons in fair Australia’s land
Still keep a British soul.
In joyful strains the let us sing
“Advance Australia fair”

The most recent change was made by the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrisson, who surreptitiously one weekend in late Dec. 2020, when everybody was on holidays or preoccupied by Christmas and New Year, changed the phrase “for we are young and free” to “for we are one and free.” This is problematical for several reasons. One is that Australia is definitely not “one” on the issue as the controversy about the words of the anthem and the date of our “national day” is hotly disputed. Second, aboriginal groups rightly state that their culture is not “young” as they are descendants of one of the oldest cultures on the planet. Only the Constitution of the nation state of Australia is “young”, at least in comparison. Thirdly, as a libertarian I do not regard Australia as “free” given its large welfare state, high rates taxation, massive bureaucratic regulation of our lives, and a history of high tariffs and government subsidies to privileged industries. In response to this, I have written my own version of the first verse of AAF which is included below,

Morrison’s act also raises the following question in my mind: Is the power to unilaterally change the words of the “national” anthem one of the enumerated powers of the PM under the Constitution? I think not.

Others have rewritten the anthem in an attempt to remove some of its more objectionable aspects. Jens Korff at “Creative Spirits” discusses and quotes a number of alternative versions of the anthem.4

Judith Durham (once a member of Australian pop group “The Seekers”) with the help of Kutcha Edwards has written a very good substitute which I include here.

Australia, celebrate as one, with peace and harmony.
Our precious water, soil and sun, grant life for you and me.
Our land abounds in nature’s gifts to love, respect and share,
And honouring the Dreaming, advance Australia fair.
With joyful hearts then let us sing, advance Australia fair.

Australia, let us stand as one, upon this sacred land.
A new day dawns, we’re moving on to trust and understand.
Combine our ancient history and cultures everywhere,
To bond together for all time, advance Australia fair.
With joyful hearts then let us sing, advance Australia fair.

Australia, let us strive as one, to work with willing hands.
Our Southern Cross will guide us on, as friends with other lands.
While we embrace tomorrow’s world with courage, truth and care,
And all our actions prove the words, advance Australia fair,
With joyful hearts then let us sing, advance Australia fair.

And when this special land of ours is in our children’s care,
From shore to shore forever more, advance Australia fair.
With joyful hearts then let us sing, advance … Australia … fair.

Peter Vickery, a former Victorian Supreme Court judge and founder of “Recognition in Anthem”, has written in 2019 two new verses which he has entitled “Our People” and “Our Values”. Our People goes as follows:

For sixty thousand years and more
First peoples of this land
Sustained by Country, Dreaming told
By song and artist’s hand.
Unite our cultures from afar
In peace with those first here
To walk together on this soil
Respect for all grows there.
From everywhere on Earth we sing, Advance Australia Fair.

I have even come across a parody, “Advancing Australian Fires”, written by “Mick” at the height of the bushfires in the summer of 2019/20:5

Australians why do we rejoice
While we are all on fire?
Our leader is incompetent,
Let’s throw him on the pyre.

For monied hands across the seas
We’ve pillaged land and sky.
Now we will reap what we have sown –
We’ll watch the nation fry.

With no remorse let’s go all in,
Come strip Australia bare.

There have been two attempts to “Christianise” the song as the following examples show; The first was written by Dr Robin Lorimer Sharwood, fourth Warden of Trinity College in The University of Melbourne, and is apparently used within St Paul’s Cathedral Melbourne:6

O God, who made this ancient land,
And set it round with sea,
Sustain us all who dwell herein,
One people strong and free.
Grant we may guard its generous gifts,
Its beauty rich and rare.
In your great name, may we proclaim,
`Advance, Australia fair!’
With thankful hearts then let us sing,
`Advance Australia, fair!’

Your star-bright Cross aslant our skies
Gives promise sure and true
That we may know this land of ours
A nation blessed by You.
May all who come within its bounds
Its peace and plenty share,
And grant that we may prayerfully
Advance Australia fair.
With thankful hearts then let us sing,
`Advance, Australia fair!’

There is another Christian verse of unknown origin:

With Christ our head and cornerstone,
We’ll build our nation’s might;
Whose way and truth and light alone
Can guide our path aright;
Our lives a sacrifice of love,
Reflect our Master’s care
With faces turned to heaven above
Advance Australia Fair!
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia Fair!

In imitation of the New Zealanders who have an English and a Maori version of their anthem “God Defend New Zealand” (1876), someone in the Australian rugby fraternity wrote a verse in the Eora language which was sung at the Australia vs Argentina Tri Nations match last year. The words are as follows:7

Australiagal ya’nga yabun
Eora budgeri
Yarragal Bamal Yarrabuni
Ngurra garrigarrang
Nura mari guwing bayabuba
Diara-murrahmah-coing
Guwugu yago ngabay burrabagur
Yirribana Australiagal
Garraburra ngayiri yabun
Yirribana Australiagal

In order to get the meter right for the purpose of singing it to the tune of “Advance Australia Fair” the Eora words are very terse and the translation provided by the unnamed author is not very coherent or understandable to English ears.

Australian(s) do sing
People Good
Yellow Earth (ground) do not fatigue yourself
Country many (a very large number) sunrise
The sun setting red
Presently today future event tomorrow
This way Australian(s)
To dance bring sing
This way Australian(s)

It certainly leaves out the controversial parts of the English language version which in my view makes it a rewrite of the anthem not a true translation. Since the Eora language has not had any native speakers for a very long time it has had to be reconstructed by linguists from notebooks made by some of the observations made by science officers in the First Fleet (e.g. David Collins and Lt. William Dawes) .8

A further problem which comes to mind is the selection of only one aboriginal language for the translation. One could argue that Eora was the language of the clans which lived in the Sydney region at the time of the arrival of the First Fleet (estimated to be about 30 in number), but this became a “dead” language when the population was either wiped out by disease or “assimilated” into the broader community by the late 19thC. Why wasn’t a “living” aboriginal language chosen, one with perhaps the most native speakers alive today?

Map of Aboriginal languages in the Sydney area.

Since there are now so many different version to choose from, I thought I would add my own “libertarian” version of the national anthem to the mix.

Australians let’s all feel remorse
For we were strong and free;
Our golden soil and wealth from toil
Is taxed by tyranny.
Our land abounds with harmful laws
So we must take a vow;
For history’s sake, our children’s fate,
Let’s free Australia now!
With angry voice then let us shout,
Let’s free Australia now!

  1. Jim Fletcher, “McCormick, Peter Dodds (1834–1916)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published first in hardcopy 1986, accessed online 30 January 2021. [↩]
  2. Graeme Skinner, “McCormick, Peter” The Dictionary of Sydney (2008). [↩]
  3. Source: The Australian National Flag Association – “National Symbols – National Anthem”. [↩]
  4. Source: Jens Korff, “National anthem: Advanced, Aboriginal & Fair?” (1 Jan. 2021). [↩]
  5. Source: “Am I Right” website Advancing Australian Fires, Parody Song Lyrics of Peter Dodds McCormick, “Advance Australia Fair”. [↩]
  6. Source: David C. Leslie’s article. [↩]
  7. Source: NSW Government website, “Australia Day in NSW”. [↩]
  8. See the work by Jakelin Troy, The Sydney Language (Canberra 1993). [↩]

Australia Day: Girted, Skirted, and Alerted

Posted on by

After a long absence from Australia (20 years) it is interesting and instructive to be here on “Australia Day”. The day itself was hot and humid (37.5C) as was the perennial arguments about what “the 26th of January” is or should be all about, when “the 26th of January” should be held, or even whether “the 26th of January” should be celebrated at all. I fall into the latter camp since I am a classic example of a “rootless cosmopolitan”, as well as a “classical liberal”.

I find nearly all “national” anthems objectionable and usually refuse to stand or sing along at public events. This was sometimes hard to do when we were living in the US as most Americans are very “patriotic” (their term – mine is “nationalistic”). A study of several national anthems reveals that they often express very violent and chauvinistic sentiments which liberal people should avoid. I have given lectures over the years on “The Culture of Obedience” in which I discuss the political purpose of these anthems and how similar many of them are. See for example this one.

So what follows are some reflections on being “Girted,” “Skirted”, and “Alerted”.

On Being Girted

I was not living in Australia in 1984 when, as a result of a referendum, the national anthem was changed from “God Save the Queen” to “Advance Australia Fair”. I thought having a folk song known by most Australians would have been a better choice, as it is more of an “anti-anthem” than a true, patriotic song designed to inculcate respect for and obedience to a sovereign power. The song “Walzing Matilda” was after all a song about a vagrant who chose to commit suicide than to let himself be arrested for petty theft.

The version of “God Save the Queen” which we had sing when I was at school had this very objectionable second version, which has since been expunged from popular memory for obvious reasons. It went like this:

O Lord, our God, arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall.
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all.`

Back in the 1960s cinemas would play the national anthem and we were expected to stand while it was played. My first overt political act was to refuse to stand when the anthem was played, which sometimes incurred the wrath of patriotic old ladies who were sitting behind me in the theatre and who would wave their handbags about in a threatening manner.

In early January the Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison, unilaterally changed one of the words in the anthem to try to appease the critics – we were no longer “young” but had become overnight “one”. This seemed rather odd and high-handed in a supposed democracy, so I thought it was now time to read the Australian national anthem from beginning to end to see what the fuss was about. The following words (the original not (politically) corrected lyrics) can be found on Wikipedia:

Australia’s sons, let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in nature’s gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history’s page, let every stage
Advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains let us sing,
Advance, Australia fair.

When gallant Cook from Albion sail’d,
To trace wide oceans o’er,
True British courage bore him on,
Til he landed on our shore.
Then here he raised Old England’s flag,
The standard of the brave;
“With all her faults we love her still”
“ Britannia rules the wave.”
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance, Australia fair.

While other nations of the globe
Behold us from afar,
We’ll rise to high renown and shine
Like our glorious southern star;
From England soil and Fatherland,
Scotia and Erin fair,
Let all combine with heart and hand
To advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance, Australia fair.

Should foreign foe e’er sight our coast,
Or dare a foot to land,
We’ll rouse to arms like sires of yore,
To guard our native strand;
Britannia then shall surely know,
Though oceans roll between,
Her sons in fair Australia’s land
Still keep their courage green.
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia fair.

As far as national anthems go, this would have to rank pretty low down the list because of its stilted language, unimaginative lyrics, and chauvinistic national sentiments. In other words, it is not an anthem I would bother to stand up for.

Satirists like David Hunt have seized on one very stilted expression for his book on Australian history entitled “Girt” and “True Girt”. I hope he writes a third, the title for which I suggest should be “Girt Unbound”. Or perhaps he could rewrite the anthem in order to add more trite descriptions of “our” country, such as verses about “our home is domed by air” or “our farms are based on dirt” (“dirt” rhymes with “girt”).

I wonder if the composer of “Advance Australia Fair”, Peter Dodds McCormick, realized at the time he wrote the lyrics (1878) that the east coast of Australia was chosen for a penal colony precisely because it was so remote and surrounded by vast oceans and thus created a natural “gird” to prevent the convicts from escaping. A bit like the French “Devil’s Island” (founded 1852) only bigger and with both poisonous spiders and sharks.

Or that this self same remoteness would provide our beloved leader Scott Morrison with another natural “gird” to wrap around us to prevent people flying in and out of the country spreading pestilence and pox. The “Tyranny of Distance” now seems to have been replaced by “the tyranny of hygiene central planners.”

At the moment, I don’t think I have ever felt more “girt” in my life and so the words of the anthem will have added meaning which its lyrcist (if we can call him that) never intended.

On being Alerted

Peter Dodds McCormick wrote another patriotic song circa 1901 called “Awake! Awake, Australia!” which was a call for the new nation of Australia to come to the defence of the Empire. Britain was involved in fighting the South African Boer’s struggle for independence and McCormick thought Australian men needed to be “alerted” so they could “lead the van” in order to “keep the Empire won”.

Note also the repeated exhortations for “Australia Fair” to arise from its slumbers and to lead the fight for the Empire.

Awake! Awake, Australia!
Awake from peaceful ease!
The nations great are calling thee,
From distant lands and seas.
Thy dormant days are ended, thy hours of rest are run;
Now rouse thee, for a nation’s work,
and keep the Empire won!
Beneath thy bright blue skies,
Australia Fair, arise!

“Awake! Awake, Australia!”
Old Father Neptune cries,
“My children have to Manhood grown,
beneath the southern skies;
My northern sons have led you,
brave, darling me of old.
Now southern seas, bring forth your men
of worth and courage bold!”
Beneath thy bright blue skies,
Australia Fair, arise!

Awake! Awake, Australia!
Old Britain’s bracing cheer
Is borne across the waters far,
and all her children hear.
The echoes are reply-ing
from climes o’er all the world
Australia fair must lead the van,
with banner bright unfurled!
Beneath thy bright blue skies,
Australia Fair, arise!

I wonder how Scott Morrison would change some of these lyrics to make it more politically correct. Might I suggest making it more gender inclusive as I don’t think it right for only the men (manhood, sons) to do the fighting for “God, King, and Country”. Australian women also need to be “alerted” to do their patriotic duty.

On being Skirted

While we argue about what to call “the 26th of January” or when in fact we should have “the 26th January”, or if we should have a “26th of January” at all, most people seem to “skirt” around the issue of convictism. Scott Morrison, bless his soul, tried to rise this issue last week and got blasted out of the water by suggesting that it wasn’t much fun for the soldiers and convicts on board the First Fleet “Scott Morrison criticised for saying 26 January ‘wasn’t a flash day for those on first fleet vessels either’”. It would have been more historically accurate to have mentioned the Second Fleet which came the following year and suffered horrendous casualties en route (25% died) and a further 20% died in the immediate months after landing.

A very large spotted gum next door came crashing down early on Boxing Day morning, crushing 2 parked cars, and causing considerable alarm. I tell you this because one of the “arborists” who came to clear up the debris told me that his ancestor had arrived on the Second Fleet, which is why I got to reading about it. I asked myself if there had been a “Last Fleet” and if so, would they have called it that? Probably not. And do the descendants of the 2nd, 3rd, and nth fleets gather around the BBQ on Australia Day and boast about their family’s heritage. Again, probably not.

As a side note, in the Third Fleet of 1791 (was this the last of the “numbered” fleets to arrive in Sydney?) it is important to note that one of the vessels, the Mary Ann, had a much needed “cargo” of women, who were in short supply in the male-dominated prison. Ever since, historians have been arguing whether in fact the “Mary Ann” was the last ship to arrive of the Second Fleet, or the first in the Third Fleet. I’m not sure this bothered the women cargo as much.

The hyper-nationalism of some conservative groups makes the historian in me want to point out the fact, which they like to “skirt”, that the colony in Sydney was a military run penal colony which had most of the features of a centrally planned socialist economy, with coerced labour, a government controlled and regulated “public stores” system for the distribution of essential goods, a barely functioning or even non-existent free market, bans on liquor consumption, controls on what could be produced (to satisfy the requirement of the East India Company monopolies in the region), the leasing of land to favoured individuals, and so on. Thus, the early decades of the colony were hardly the beacon of private property, free market capitalism, and democracy which some conservatives today would like to think. Some of these things might come later, but not for several decades of experiment and failure with military central planning of the economy. On “the 26th of January” this is what comes to my mind not the sunnier “for we are young and free”.

Four arrested in Sydney’s Hyde Park after peaceful Invasion Day protest at The Domain – ABC News

Given the convict and military socialist origins of the colony in Sydney it seems more than fitting that police on “Australia Day” would arrest and possibly imprison protesters for not maintaining the required “social distancing” in a public place. (By the way, shouldn’t this be called “anti-social distancing”?) Perhaps in solidarity with the founders of the colony (or should we rather call them “inmates”) we should all attempt to get arrested by engaging in acts of civil (or even uncivil) disobedience. We could then protest “Incarceration Day” as well as “Invasion Day”.

Maybe next year.

Socialism is Zombie Economics

Posted on by

Zombie Economics

A couple of years ago (July 2018) I gave a talk at a Students for Liberty conference on “Zombie Economics” with particular reference to the Marxist “manifestation” of this intellectual beast which refuses to die, no matter how many times it has been “killed” (intellectually speaking of course). It has been the revolutionary Marxists who have done most of the killing once they have seized political power and find that their utopian economic schemes fail to work as planned). As of 1997, the total of deaths caused by the attempt to impose Marxist economic polices since the experiment began in 1917 in Russia is about 94 million and rising. It would be much more if one included other variants of socialism such as “national” socialism. [See, Stéphane Courtois, Andrzej Paczkowski, Nicolas Werth, et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Harvard University Press, 1997)].

[See “ How to kill the Marxist zombie once and for all: or, how you can learn to stop worrying about S&M on campus ,” YAL Conference, Washington D.C. 26 July, 2018.]

Of course, Marxism is not the only variant of “zombie economics” which advocates of the free market have had to deal with. And economists from other schools of thought naturally have the opposite view. They, like the Keynesian economist from the University of Queensland, John Quiggen, think that free market ideas should also be described as “zombie economics”, or as he put it in the subtitle of his book of the same title, “how dead ideas still walk among us.” The specific examples of these ideas he gave prominence on the front cover were “privatized social security,” “trickle-down economics,” and “efficient financial markets.”1.

The most prevalent form of zombie economics until recently is “protectionism”, which is really a euphemism for special privileges granted to some domestic/national producers and their workers in order to shield or “protect” them from competitive forces and thus guarantee the continuation of their profits and wages, and to prevent by force other domestic consumers and producers and their workers from buying cheaper (usually foreign) alternatives. Or in other words, every act of “protection” for some must inevitably cause “harm” to others – which is a classic example of Frédéric Bastiat’s notion of “the seen” (protection of some) and “the unseen” (harm to others). [See my blogpost on Bastiat on the Seen and the Unseen (29 May, 2020) and my paper Bastiat on the Seen and the Unseen: An Intellectual History.]

However a second manifestation of zombie economics has appeared in recent years, that of a resurgence of interest in fully fledged “socialism”, even Marxism. This coincided with the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia which was very positively commented upon in papers like the New York Times; the acclaim for the French economist Thomas Picketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Harvard, 2017) (which was intended to be an update to Marx’s volume of same name which appeared in 1867); and the appearance of the film “The Young Marx” (2017), funded by numerous state film and TV organizations in the European Union, to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Marx’s birth in 1818; to cite only a few examples.

Socialist Economic Thought before it became Zombified

Given this revived interest in things Socialist or Marxist I want to revisit some of the key socialist and Marxist thinkers of the past, to see what they actually thought could and should replace the “chaos of the market” and the “immiseration of the working class” by “predatory capitalism,” and the response of classical liberals and political economists of the time to these ideas. I have prepared a summary of socialist criticisms of private property, and the free market; and a similar list of CL answers to these criticisms and their critique of socialism. I will detail these in future posts.

If one were feeling charitable towards the “ideal” of socialism (which I am not) one might take the view of J.S. Mill who argued that the ideal of classical liberalism can be compared with the ideal of socialism (which was possible at his time – the 1850s and 1860s); but the reality of the free market could not be compared to the reality of socialism, as the latter had not yet been put into practice. The 20th century would provide that “reality check” which was not available in Mill’s own lifetime. We now I think have all the evidence we need to make that comparison. By 1920, as Ludwig von Mises conclusively demonstrated in his essay on “Economic Calculation under Socialism”, the jury was in.

In short, I have noticed is two things about the early history of socialist thought: the general weakness (even naivety and absurdity) of the ideas put forward on behalf of socialism beginning largely in the 1820s and reaching a pinnacle in the 1840s on the eve of the 1848 Revolution, and the enduring strength of the CL critique which also began at this time. When Marx attempted to make socialism more “scientific” with his three volume book on Das Kapital (1869-96) things in my view did not improve, as Böhm-Bawerk demonstrated in his demolition of Marxist economic theory when Marx’s third and final volume appeared posthumously in print. It makes one wonder why these zombie economic ideas continue to be advocated today and why the liberal critique continues to be ignored.

Historically, I think we can identify the following different kinds of socialism which have been advocated at different times:

  1. Utopian socialism: “dropping out” or withdrawing from capitalist society in order to form socialist communities which would be a model for the future; the formation of voluntary socialist communities based upon the ideas of Robert Owen and Charles Fourier many of which were located in the United States
  2. Democratic socialism, or “socialism from below” where elected politicians work within capitalist society, to use their numbers to control parliament, and reform it from within; examples include
    1. Louis Blanc’s National Workshops – street activism & “direct action” (Feb.-May 1848) ; state ownership and/or funding of factories and “workshops” in order to guarantee a job for all (the so-called “le droit au travail” (the right to work, or right to a job) as advocated by Victory Considerant and Louis Blanc in the 1840s
    2. the rise of “Fabian Socialism” in the 1880s and the formation of the Labour Party in Britain (1900)
    3. “social democracy”: the formation of Socialist Parties in France (1879) and Germany (Social Democratic Party in 1875)
    4. the welfare state socialism wich emerged in the US (the “New Deal”) and Western Europe during the 1930s and late 1940s
    5. Green socialism (The Greens) in the late 20th century up unit the present, and their proposed “Green New Deal” which is explicitly based upon the comprehensive “socialist” (or “interventionist”) measures of FDR
  3. Bureaucratic socialism: “socialism from above” – imposed by a charismatic political leader who appeals to workers directly, thus by-passing parliament
    1. state socialism (Staatssozialismus, Socialisme d’état)
    2. the “Bonapartism” of Napoléon III 1852-1870
    3. Ferdinand Lassalle and perhaps also Otto von Bismarck in Germany, and
    4. Claudio Jennet in France
    5. war socialism (Kriegssozialismus) during WW1
    6. Adolph Hitler and “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (NSDAP) (the National Socialist German Workers Party, or Nazi Party) 1920-1945
    7. what Ludwig von Mises called ”Interventionism” and which in one manifestation came in the form of the hybrid welfare-warfare state
  4. Revolutionary socialism: a more extreme version of bureaucratic and war socialism where the state “owns” the means of production under the control of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” (die Diktatur des Proletariats) which has come to power by means of a revolution and the violent seizure of state power; this had two versions:
    1. Karl Marx – revolution & dictatorship of proletariat (failure of 1848 showed him need for “dictatorship” to prevent electoral backlash or coup d’état); had to happen in most advanced industrialized economies first; socialist would take over the economic system- as advocated by Marx in the Communist Manifesto (1848)
    2. Lenin – who broke with Marx’s vision as he believed communism could be created in a relatively backward, undeveloped country like Russia; became commonplace in 20thC
      1. Lenin and Bolsheviks in Russia 1917
      2. Mao Zedong in China 1949
      3. Fidel Castro in Cuba 1959

The Classical Liberal Response to the Rise of Socialism

Classical liberals and political economists responded to the challenge of socialism in the following periods when socialist ideas were seen as a growing threat:

  1. 1840s France when organised socialism first made an appearance in the 1848 Revolution
    1. the ideas of Victor Considerant, Louis Blanc, and Joseph Proudhon were criticized by Frédéric Bastiat, Michel Chevalier, and Gustave de Molinari
  2. 1870s, 1880s and 1890s in western Europe when organised socialist parties began to emerge
    1. Germany: the ideas of Karl Marx were criticized by the economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk; those of Auguste Bebel by the politician Eugen Richter
    2. England: George Bernard Shaw and the “Fabian socialists” were criticized by Herbert Spencer, Thomas Mackay, Wordsworth Donisthorpe, and Auberon Herbert
    3. France: the economists Jennet and Gide were criticized by the economists and politicians Frédéric Passy, Yves Guyot, Paul Leroy-Beaulieu
  3. 1920s and 1930s: when the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises first exposed the serious economic weaknesses in Marxist/Bolshevik central planning
    1. Lenin and Stalin vs. Mises and Hayek
  4. 1980s and 1990s: a new younger generation of Austrian economists (Don Lavoie and Peter Boettke) examined weakness of planned economies on the eve of their collapse

I have begun to assemble a collection of works by socialist writers and their critics on my website to document the strengths/weaknesses of the socialist position and their enduring appeal; as well as the often devastating critique offered by classical liberals and the political economists. I will begin with “the French Connection” in another post, before moving on to late 19th century English, German, and French socialist thought.

  1. John Quiggin, Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk among Us. With a new chapter by the author (Princeton U.P., 2012). [↩]

Lord Acton and The Prince (1891)

Posted on by

“Lord Acton” (John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton) (1834-1902) believed that historians should make moral judgements about the actions of the people they studied, in particular political and religious leaders. His best known statement of this view can be found in a series of letters he wrote to Bishop Creighton in 1887. They contain some of his most colorful language on the subject, such as his famous phrase, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, as well as that historians should act like a “hanging judge” when it came time to judging the behaviour of such leaders.

The context of the letters was the question of how religious historians (Acton was a devout Catholic) should handle the corrupt and even criminal behaviour of many Popes, and the appalling treatment of dissidents and heretics during the Inquisition, such as censorship, banishment, imprisonment, torture, and brutal executions. This historical problem led Acton to talk about the universal nature of moral principles, their applicability to both rulers and those they ruled, the requirement for historians to use such principles in the assessment of historical figures, the tendency of these powerful historical figures to be “bad men”, and that it was the function of historians to “hang them”. In the third letter to Creighton, Acton quotes with some approval a conversation he had with John Bright, one of the leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League, who stated to him that “If the people knew what sort of men statesmen were, they would rise and hang the whole lot of them.” Whether Bright and Acton meant this literally or metaphorically is not clear.

Here is an extended quotation from one of these letters to Creighton:

Here, again, what I said is not in any way mysterious or esoteric. It appeals to no hidden code. It aims at no secret moral. It supposes nothing and implies nothing but what is universally current and familiar. It is the common, even the vulgar, code I appeal to.

Upon these two points we differ widely; still more widely with regard to the principle by which you undertake to judge men. You say that people in authority are not [to] be snubbed or sneezed at from our pinnacle of conscious rectitude. I really don’t know whether you exempt them because of their rank, or of their success and power, or of their date. The chronological plea may have some little value in a limited sphere of instances. It does not allow of our saying that such a man did not know right from wrong, unless we are able to say that he lived before Columbus, before Copernicus, and could not know right from wrong. It can scarcely apply to the centre of Christendom, 1500 after the birth of our Lord. That would imply that Christianity is a mere system of metaphysics, which borrowed some ethics from elsewhere. It is rather a system of ethics which borrowed its metaphysics elsewhere. Progress in ethics means a constant turning of white into black and burning what one has adored. There is little of that between St. John and the Victorian era.

But if we might discuss this point until we found that we nearly agreed, and if we do argue thoroughly about the impropriety of Carlylese denunciations, and Pharisaism in history, **I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position, like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science.**

The standard having been lowered in consideration of date, is to be still further lowered out of deference to station. Whilst the heroes of history become examples of morality, the historians who praise them, Froude, Macaulay, Carlyle, become teachers of morality and honest men. Quite frankly, I think there is no greater error. The inflexible integrity of the moral code is, to me, the secret of the authority, the dignity, the utility of history. If we may debase the currency for the sake of genius, or success, or rank, or reputation, we may debase it for the sake of a man’s influence, of his religion, of his party, of the good cause which prospers by his credit and suffers by his disgrace. Then history ceases to be a science, an arbiter of controversy, a guide of the wanderer, the upholder of that moral standard which the powers of earth, and religion itself, tend constantly to depress. It serves where it ought to reign; and it serves the worst better than the purest.

Four years later, Acton would return to this topic in a lengthy introduction to a new edition of Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513) edited by Arthur Burd in 1891. I have put this Introduction online here. To make this essay easier to read I have put all his quotes in italics (he quotes works in Latin, French, German, Spanish, and Italian – as well as English), and have put in bold some of his comments and thoughts.

Whether one thinks Machiavelli wrote this notorious book in order to ingratiate himself with a ruthless Prince of his own day (the “ambitious” Machiavelli), or to warn, in a guarded fashion, readers of the true behavior of the ruthless leaders he observed around him (the “realist” or “republican Machiavelli), or as satire (the “comic” Machiavelli), Lord Acton respected Machiavelli’s “political sagacity”. He also thought that the practices he described had deep roots in European history which needed to be openly admitted and discussed by critical historians, and which were increasingly being adopted by politicians and leaders in his own day, especially in the nationalist movements in places like Italy and Germany.

Hidden among the thicket of untranslated quotations are many important observations about the nature of politics and the behavior of those who wield political power. Here are a selection:

  • “that extraordinary objects cannot be accomplished under ordinary rules” – by this Acton/Machiavelli meant that many political feats, such as state building, empire and “nation” building, could not be achieved if politicians and “statesmen” were limited in their actions by normal moral precepts
  • he chronicles a lengthy list of the kinds of actions politicians and religious leaders had taken to advance their interests, such as “murder by royal command”, and the violent suppression of “the rebel, the usurper, the heterodox or rebellious town”
  • that these crimes had been improperly justified by historians and political theorists by a kind of moral relativism based on the ideas that “that public life is not an affair of morality, that there is no available rule of right and wrong, that men must be judged by their age, that the code shifts with the longitude, that the wisdom which governs the event is superior to our own”
  • that it was wrong for these same theorists (such as nationalist historians or those who wrote hagiographic histories of kings and queens) to indulge in “the solecism of power” (the error of those who wield power) to only think about the glorious outcome (of say national unification) and to ignore the means taken to achieve that goal (war, revolution, oppression)
  • Acton concluded that in order for these “extraordinary objects” to be achieved there had to be what he called “the emancipation of the State from the moral yoke” which was applicable to ordinary people
  • the end result was what he termed “a Machiavellian restoration” which he saw taking place in late 19th century Europe, where there was “no righteousness apart from the State”, and where over the course of “our own” century we have “seen the course of its history twenty-five times diverted by actual or attempted crime”

Since Acton died soon after the start of the 20th century (as did other “old liberals” like Herbert Spencer and Gustave de Molinari) he did not live to see any of the atrocities states would inflict on the world in the bloody 20th century.

One Volume Surveys of Classical Liberal Thought

Posted on by

[Katsushika Hokusai, “The Great Wave off Kanagawa” (c. 1829–1833)]

[Note: This post is part of a series on the History of the Classical Liberal Tradition]

When did classical liberals become self-conscious that they were advocating an entire worldview (Weltanschauung) of politics, economics, and social relationships in general which was a) consistent internally, b) was different from other worldviews (such as socialism),and c) which could be articulated in one volume? I have made an attempt to list some examples of this.

I begin with a collection of one volume surveys of the classical liberal position which have appeared over the past two centuries. The defining characteristic is that they are an attempt to provide the reader with a survey of the basic political and economic principles behind the classical liberal tradition as well as some concrete proposals for reform in order to bring about a freer society. The defining characteristic is that they are an attempt to provide the reader with a survey of the basic political and economic principles behind the classical liberal tradition as well as some concrete proposals for reform in order to bring about a freer society.

With the exception of Wilhelm von Humboldt’s The Limits of State Action which was written in 1792 but was not published in full until 1854, it seems that it was not until the mid-19th century before people began thinking of classical liberalism as a coherent body of thought which could be encapsulated in a one volume treatment. I include in this early group Gustave de Molinari, Herbert Spencer, and John Stuart Mill who published their books between 1849 and 1859. Molinari’s Evenings on Saint Lazarus Street (1849) is perhaps the first one volume, comprehensive statement of the classical liberal political and economic worldview designed to appeal to an educated reader rather than a specialist, ever written.

We can mark this group or “first wave” as part of the emergence of “classical liberalism” per se, which saw the dramatic liberal reforms of the Victorian period, such as the repeal of the Corn Laws which ushered in the period of free trade which lasted up until the First World War.

There is a second group which emerged in the 1970s when the modern libertarian movement appeared in the United States and include works by John Hospers, David Friedman, and Murray Rothbard, . Several of these were designed to be political “manifestos” for groups like the Libertarian Party (founded 1971).

One might also pinpoint the period of the last 10 years as the latest burst of activity with works by Eric Mack, Richard Ebeling, Deidre McCloskey, and perhaps George Will.

I have been putting online as many of the “first wave” of these books as I can find.

Here is my list ( a version of which is at my website in the section on “The Great Books of Liberty”:

First wave:

  • Wilhelm von Humboldt, Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Gränzen der Wirksamkeit des Staates zu bestimmen (Ideas presented in an Attempt to determine the Limits of State Activity) (1792, 1854)
  • Benjamin Constant, Principes de politique, applicables à tous les gouvernemens représentatifs (The Principles of Politics which are applicable to all Representative Governments) (1815)
  • Gustave de Molinari, Les Soirées de la rue Saint-lazare (Evenings on Saint Lazarus Street) (1849)
  • Herbert Spencer, Social Statics (1851)
  • JS Mill, On Liberty (1859)
  • Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Ethics (1879)
  • Bruce Smith, Liberty and Liberalism (1888)

Second wave (20th century before the modern libertarian movement emerged)

  • Ludwig von Mises, Liberalismus (Liberalism) (1927)
  • Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1960)
  • Milton Friedman (with the assistance of Rose D. Friedman), Capitalism and Freedom (University of Chicago, 1962)

Third wave (which coincided with the emergence of the modern libertarian movement):

  • John Hospers, Libertarianism – A Political Philosophy for Tomorrow (Los Angeles: Nash, 1971)
  • David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism (1973)
  • Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty (New York: Macmillan, 1973)
  • Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch, 1980; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1980)

And the current, perhaps “Fourth” wave:

  • Eric Mack, Libertarianism (Key Concepts in Political Theory. Polity, 2018)
  • Richard Ebeling, For a New Liberalism (American Institute for Economic Research, 2019)
  • George F. Will, The Conservative Sensibility (Hachette Books, 2019).
  • Deirdre McCloskey, Why Liberalism Works: How True Liberal Values Produce a Freer, More Equal, Prosperous World for All (Yale University Press, 2019)

Of course, in spite of this latest wave of libertarian activity, the world may nevertheless still end up in an ideological and political shipwreck for lovers of liberty.

[Théodore Géricault, “Scène de Naufrage” (Shipwreck Scene) or “The Raft of the Medusa” (1818–19)]