Apparently Bertrand Russell knew more than we give him credit for, since he was able to identify the Asiatic origins of Communism:
In 1947 Bertrand Russell, the British scientist, philosopher and pacifist leader, saw the monopoly as the world’s only opportunity for preventing the Soviets from working their will on much of the globe. Noting the nature of “Asiatic communism” (which American liberals were often unable to see in its fullest dimensions), he argued for forcing Moscow into a humane capitulation, even if it took a military ultimatum to do it.
Many centuries ago, the West chose a system which emphasized the individual and the transcendent as parts of one another, and from this created social hierarchy, where instead of one centralized leader, a tiered hierarchy was created which encouraged evolution at all levels.
In Asia, which was richer and had greater populations, the leaders chose another approach: instead of dealing with warring local kings and princes, they would create an empire, and make everyone obey the tyrant. From this ancient warnings about “Asiatic tyranny” came about.
With the rise of Genghis Khan and his sons, this became essentially modern civilization based on bureaucracy with an ideological/symbolic center represented by a supreme leader. The modern State came from the Mongols:
The new khan was faced with two major problems at the outset of his reign: first, the imperial treasury was empty and riches were badly needed to keep the Mongol army loyal, and second, the Mongols had defeated many armies and deposed just as many rulers but they had very little in the way of a state apparatus, bureaucracy or government which would allow them to effectively rule these conquered territories. Ogedei realised that solving the second problem and being then able to impose taxes on conquered peoples would also solve the first problem. This is what transpired with ministers and officials being sent to govern various regions and supervise local tax collectors. With a new capital established at Karakorum (1235 CE), a more solid state apparatus in place and a steady income guaranteed, the khan could turn his attention to expanding his empire even further.
From this basic model, Communism emerged. Instead of taxing the people directly, it would transfer ownership of all means of production to the state, and charge it with redistributing the wealth after subtracting what it needed of course.
This put it on the wrong side of Parkinson’s Law:
“It is a commonplace observation that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” British naval historian and author Cyril Northcote Parkinson wrote that opening line for an essay in The Economist in 1955, but the concept known as ‘Parkinson’s Law’ still lives on today.
But what fewer people know is that Parkinson’s original intent was not to take aim at old lady letter-writers or journalists like me, but at a different kind of inefficiency – the bureaucratisation of the British Civil Service. In his original essay he pointed out that although the number of navy ships decreased by two thirds, and personnel by a third, between 1914 and 1928, the number of bureaucrats had still ballooned by almost 6% a year. There were fewer people and less work to manage – but management was still expanding, and Parkinson argued that this was due to factors that were independent of naval operational needs.
In Austrian economics terms, Communism creates a new industry for bureaucracy and, in doing so, displaces other industries. The more there is reward for being a bureaucrat, the more people will do it, and soon society will have more takers than makers at the top.
Careerism plays into this as well. A bureaucrat wants to do what gets him rewarded, which means whatever his supervisor has set out for him to achieve; this means he does the task as written, and ignores other consequences and especially, any risks that might endanger his career, such as those required to do the task well.
Modern Western Civilizations have adopted the Asiatic model formally and the Western model informally, kicking the question from aptitude in leadership to aptitude in business, following the Semitic model seemingly espoused in the universalist (everyone is equal) and dualist (moral order from Heaven differs from that of Earth) Judeo-Christian religion. That, too, has partially Asiatic origins.
How did we end up using an Asiatic form of government? Through the Big Lie, “equality,” which makes us all identical in power and wealth, requiring a central administration (instead of a hierarchy) to dole out wealth and determine who is ideologically correct enough to advance.
A hierarchy, on the other hand, conserves wealth within the hierarchy and rewards those who have achieved good results. Mirroring natural selection, this ensures that the greatest power remains among the most competent; this system produces more geniuses but fewer people, and so is always at a disadvantage to the Asiatic mass mobilization system.
The Asiatic method however appeals to the tyrant in us all, as well as the weakness and fear. Those fears lead us to criminalize attacks on individuals so that each of us can live free of consequences and yet, also enslaves us to that system.
One Asiatic society escaped the mass mobilization doctrine, namely Japan, and put up with the infighting of its princes instead of the uniformity of a modern-style bureaucracy. Perhaps the best human life gets involves lots of infighting, placing pressure on the hierarchy to preserve balance, since the alternative of centralization is so bad.
For us to restore Western Civilization, we will need to set up a market for fulfilling the goals of the West: achieve excellence, balance, harmony, aggression, wisdom, and realism. Only then can we start producing people of genius again and avoid the Asiatic model.