Influence of Russell Kirk on 4GW?

William Lind, founder of Fourth Generation Warfare theory, references Russell Kirk quite often in his writings. Google "Russell Kirk" and "William Lind" and you find these Examples:

"Russell Kirk, the grand old man of the post-war American
conservative movement"

"As Russell Kirk wrote, there is no surer way of making someone your enemy"

"as Russell Kirk wrote, conservatism is the negation of ideology"

"even to Russell Kirk conservatives like myself"

It appears that William Lind is a dedicated follower of Russell Kirk's brand of conservatism. So what influence has Kirk had on the development of 4GW?

Kirk is a follower of the 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke. Burke argued that a society is structured on traditions. It takes a society generations and generations to evolve traditions that will support it. For example, the U.S. Constitution is a continuation of thousands of years of British political and societal traditions. Their motto is, “Constitutions are not invented, they grow.”

Kirk and Burke abhorred societies based upon "abstractions." In other words, a society cannot be based on an abstract theory like communism or “state of nature doctrines.” The French Revolution was heavily criticized by Burke for trying to destroy the old French monarchical society in order to create a new revolutionary republic built on abstract principals.

Conservatives who are ardent followers of this linking tend to believe that once a society’s traditions are destroyed, that society itself is inevitably destroyed. I make the assertion that the emphasis on “traditions” vs. “abstractions” in Kirk’s thinking makes his followers more prone to predict the inevitable destruction of the “nation-state.” I think that 4GW’s absolute assertion that the nation-state is being destroyed by non-state actors directly descends, in part, from the Kirkian emphasis on traditional society vs. revolutionary abstract theories.

The non-state actors represent the newest threat to traditional society. Revolutionary in form, they seek to destroy the state and its traditions through various means and build a new society based on abstract norms.

Weaknesses of Kirk:

Kirk rejects the idea that late 17th century English philosopher John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” had any influence on the Founding Fathers. This assertion by itself negates any claims that Kirk is a good historian. Locke had a tremendous influence on the Founding Fathers. Any cursory reading of speeches by revolutionary preachers will show direct influences of Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government.” Read the Declaration of Independence and then read the “Second Treatise of Government.” The connection is there.

The “Second Treatise of Government” is a document that advocates revolution and the idea that a “state of nature” existed. This is why cultural conservatives like Kirk find it so “dangerous.”

Locke uses the abstract idea of the “state of nature” as a means of showing when revolution is appropriate, property rights evolved etc.... So Locke argues that people form governments to protect their property and lives because the state of nature is to dangerous to live in. Locke argues that people formed governments from the abstract “state of nature” whereas Kirk argues society evolved through thousands of years and traditions.

So what’s the difference?

Locke argues that the state is the most powerful entity in existence. That the awesome power of the state has no match. Locke would rather exist in the state of nature where he would face 100,000 non-state actors than face a tyrannical government that has 100,000 soldiers at its disposal.

A subtle difference but an important one when we consider the 4GW emphasis on the destruction of the state and state’s loss on the monopoly of the use of force.

The Lockean perspective is that the citizenry never gives up its right to the use of force. It only loans it to the government. The government never has a “monopoly on the use of force.” When the government becomes tyrannical and reduces the people’s rights, they regain their right to the use of force. At this point the people have the right to overthrow the tyrannical government that oppresses them.

Conservatives like Kirk and Leo Strauss (the supposed paragon of the neo-conservatives) dismissed authors like Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke. And in doing so they missed another equation in the development of American republicanism, political thought and traditions. The fact is, Locke’s ideas became part of the English government traditions that Burke and Kirk love so dearly.

When we look at society from the English Republicanism standpoint, that is the traditions set down by Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, James Harrington, Algernon Sydney and Thomas Jefferson, we see a whole different world than the one espoused by Kirk and William Lind.

From the Lockean/English Republican perspective. Society will not break down because the state loses its “monopoly on the use of force.” This is because the state never had a monopoly on the use of force. The people always maintained the ultimo ratio, the ultimate authority on force.

James Harrington, an English Republican, authored the Commenwealth of Oceana in 1656. Here Robert Shalope summarizes Harrington’s main argument in “The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment”

“Like Machiavelli, Harrington considered the bearing of arms to be the primary means by which individuals affirmed their social power and political participation as responsible moral agents. But now landownership became the essential basis for the bearing of arms. Civic virtue came to be defined as the freeholder bearing arms in defense of his property and of his state.”

http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalideo.html

The yeoman farmer, armed with a rifle, on his own plot of land was the paragon of early American Republicanism. Because this man was independent of government and when the state or society broke down, he would be independent, capable of feeding himself and defending himself. Many yeoman farmers, because of mutual self-preservation, would then bind together to form a new government to protect their natural rights.

From this perspective, society would be much more resilient than 4GW would give it credit for. Rather than going into sudden shock because the state loses its monopoly on the use of force, society would immediately combine and strike back (because the citizens are armed and independent).

Locke never sees a society where the people become reliant on the “government’s monopoly on the use of force.” Rather the people are self-reliant and weary of government power. When the government cannot protect them or the government becomes to tyrannical, they go back to the state of nature and form a new government.

In summary:

Given the English Republican model set down by Locke, Harrington etc... we have some interesting differences with the Kirk/4GW camp:

1. The state is a powerful entity capable of great tyranny. It is better to face hundreds of independent enemies in the “state of nature” who cannot concentrate their power rather than an all powerful state that can concentrate its power vs. The state is very weak and the most dangerous place to be is in a “state of nature” where there are hundreds of independent enemies who are undermining society

2. The state does not have the monopoly on the use of force. The people always maintained the ultimate use on force, which is why they bear arms. When society breaks down they are ready and do not go into shock vs. The people do not have a monopoly on the use of force and when the state fails to protect people, they will go into shock and society will crumble

For more reading on “Republicanism” and the armed citizenry

See J.G.A. Pocock

The Machiavellian Moment
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/1729.html

and

The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic
http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalciti.html

I don't want to get into defending Russel Kirk...
But, if the state restricts how citizens can be armed, is it not taking for itself the monopoly on the use of force a little at a time?

I had another thought as well. It is true that the people can retain the monopoly. But If they remain loyal to the state then one might argue, in effect, that they are the monopoly of force the state retains. However, if their loyalties are outside the state then the state loses even that thread of monopoly.

War Hammer: Good and very interesting posts!

Thought I read 4th GW & Other Myths thread before... have to check that again. (searched your posts :) )

Take care,
Martin

The philosophy for independence and revolution was firmly based on Locke, Hobbs, Natural Law, English Common Law and others.

The critical point in the lead up to the American Revolution was when these sometimes "High Brow" concepts were melded together and presented in a coherent package that could be absorbed by the general public.

James Otis, "The Patriot" of Massachusetts gave the first clear public pronouncement of that philosophy in 1761 in his opposition to the "Writs of Assistance" in a public trial. He cited natural law and the rights to life, liberty and property and that sovereign power derived from the consent of the governed. He gave "tyranny" a clear definition and showed that the King's "Writs of Assistance" were tyrannical. After his five hour presentation before the court in the Old State House in Boston, John Adams wrote: “Every man of a crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did ready to up arms against the writs of assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of the opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child of Independence was born.”

Otis' words were widely printed through out the colonies and provided a unifying concept for the unfocused discontent over British Rule. Elements of his speech can be seen in many of the resolutions and declarations passed by various political organizations prior to 1776, not to mention the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Otis is credited with originating the phrases: "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny" "If we are not represented, we are slaves" and "A man's house is his castle".

Otis formed a triumvirate in Boston with John Hancock and Sam Adams and played an important role in starting the first Stamp Act Congress and setting up the Committees of Correspondence thus playing a key role in establishing the political framework that filled the power vacuum left by the fleeing Royal Governors.

James Otis suffered near fatal injuries and serious brain damage in an assault by Tories in 1769 after which he faded from view and was largely forgotten.

Goggle "James Otis" for more information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Hammer

Weaknesses of Kirk:

Quote:

---

Kirk rejects the idea that late 17th century English philosopher John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” had any influence on the Founding Fathers. This assertion by itself negates any claims that Kirk is a good historian. Locke had a tremendous influence on the Founding Fathers. Any cursory reading of speeches by revolutionary preachers will show direct influences of Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government.” Read the Declaration of Independence and then read the “Second Treatise of Government.” The connection is there.

---

The “Second Treatise of Government” is a document that advocates revolution and the idea that a “state of nature” existed. This is why cultural conservatives like Kirk find it so “dangerous.”

Locke uses the abstract idea of the “state of nature” as a means of showing when revolution is appropriate, property rights evolved etc.... So Locke argues that people form governments to protect their property and lives because the state of nature is to dangerous to live in. Locke argues that people formed governments from the abstract “state of nature” whereas Kirk argues society evolved through thousands of years and traditions.

So what’s the difference?

Locke argues that the state is the most powerful entity in existence. That the awesome power of the state has no match. Locke would rather exist in the state of nature where he would face 100,000 non-state actors than face a tyrannical government that has 100,000 soldiers at its disposal.

A subtle difference but an important one when we consider the 4GW emphasis on the destruction of the state and state’s loss on the monopoly of the use of force.

The Lockean perspective is that the citizenry never gives up its right to the use of force. It only loans it to the government. The government never has a “monopoly on the use of force.” When the government becomes tyrannical and reduces the people’s rights, they regain their right to the use of force. At this point the people have the right to overthrow the tyrannical government that oppresses them.

Conservatives like Kirk and Leo Strauss (the supposed paragon of the neo-conservatives) dismissed authors like Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke. And in doing so they missed another equation in the development of American republicanism, political thought and traditions. The fact is, Locke’s ideas became part of the English government traditions that Burke and Kirk love so dearly.

---