Japan at War in the Pacific: The Rise and Fall of The Japanese Empire in Asia 1868-1945 by Jonathan Clements

     After American Commodore Matthew Perry opened Japan in 1854, several years of unrest in Japan followed, erupting in civil conflict in 1868. It was a rebellion led by the southern clans of Satsuma and Choshu (and their smaller allies, Tosa and Hizen), who declared war on the Shogun while claiming loyalty to the emperor after 250 years of rule by Shoguns. The Satsuma and Choshu clans were on the wrong side of the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600 and had held onto their grievances against the Shogunate ever since. After winning the dramatic Battle of Ueno, the new government set about colonizing Hokkaido, Japan's northernmost big island, and the government of the Meiji Restoration abolished the old samurai domains, stripping clans of their authorities. They replaced hereditary, feudal lordships by reappointing the same lords to non-hereditary gubernatorial positions and gave them noble titles instead. Clements called it a second coup d'état, in which the clans that won their war pulled up the ladder behind them to abolish the system that allowed their coup.

    Shortly after taking over, the new government became aggressive, setting its sites on Taiwan in February 1874 after some persuasion by an American named Charles Le Gendre who served as a military advisor. Despite protests from the US ambassador to Japan (upset at the act and an American's involvement), Japanese forces attacked Taiwan in May. It was a huge success. While Japan couldn't hold the island, it did succeed in getting China to pay them to go away, essentially paying for the cost of the invasion, and the Chinese admitted that they had little control over eastern Taiwan. Japan also succeeded in getting China to admit to Japanese claims over the Ryukyu Islands, which Japan incorporated in 1880. Next, Japan set its sights on Korea, provoking a clash in September 1875 when Japanese surveyors illegally went ashore near the mouth of the Han River, by Seoul. They were following an American playbook of "gunboat diplomacy," as they did almost exactly what Commodore Perry had done to open up Japan two decades earlier. Japan and Korea signed a treaty that exempted Japanese imports and exports from tariffs and made it possible to buy Japanese goods in Korea with Japanese currency.

    In Japan itself, more reforms were underway to modernize the state. In 1876, the government banned samurai from wearing their swords in public, a traditional right, and the samurai caste was officially abolished. Samurai found themselves outside the new order. While some joined the ranks of the officers in the army and navy, others joined a rebellion led by Saigo Takamori called the Satsuma Rebellion. Saigo had been a part of the original war against the Shogun and served in the Meiji government, even leading it from 1871-73. But he resigned from government after the government rejected his plan to send him to Korea, where he would behave in an offensive manner to provoke Koreans into killing him to create a casus belli. Once he retired, he plotted rebellion, but his army of samurai was defeated by the conscript army he had created. His goals were vague, but he was largely against many forms of modernization, and he was beheaded by one of his lieutenants in a seppuku ceremony, befitting a samurai.  In 1889, Saigo was pardoned for his crimes and lauded as "the last true samurai." They put up a statue of him in Ueno Park, the site of his great victory, but they didn't have a reference for what he looked like since he refused photography during his life as a western influence. They ended up sculpting him in civilian attire using references from his relatives' appearance.

    Meanwhile, Korea was in a state of flux where a father, Daewongun, was ousted by his son, King Gojong, and plotted to get back into power against his son and his son's pro-Chinese wife. Technically, Korea was a Chinese vassal and the traditional establishment favored close ties with China. However, reformers sought to bring Korea closer to Japan or Russia. When King Gojong paid soldiers in rotten, fermenting rice in 1882, the soldiers rioted and attacked some Japanese businesses, giving Japanese leaders an excuse to intervene. King Gojong granted concessions to Japan after the appearance of some Japanese warships off the coast, but remained loyal to China, which stationed soldiers in Korea and imprisoned Daewongun. This would set the stage for later conflict with China over Korea.

    In 1890, Japan launched its new constitution that was modeled it after those of Britain and Prussia. It extended the right to vote to 5% of the population (landowning males) and was somewhat against ideas of democracy and liberalism, banning discussion of foreign ideas. Japan was led by Yamagata Aritomo, who conflicted with the liberal majority in parliament when he demanded more military appropriations. Elections were not entirely free or fair, since military supporters tried to purge anti-militarists from government positions and armed toughs went to candidates' homes and polling places to intimidate candidates and voters. Japan still returned a liberal majority that was tight on military spending despite the irregularities.

    Meanwhile, the standoff in Korea escalated. There was a peasant rebellion and King Gojong appealed for the Chinese to help. The Japanese certainly didn't like the idea of an increased Chinese presence in Korea, and they send a "matching force," permitted under the Treaty of Ganghwa, signed after the last Korean crisis. Funny enough, the rebellion was put down before any foreign forces arrived, but now they were there to stay. The Japanese Foreign Minister Mutsu Munemitsu specifically advised his underlings in July 1894 that, "You will commence active movement on some pretext, taking care to do what is least liable to criticism in the eyes of the world." He neglected to tell the Prime Minister Ito Hirobuni that the rebellion had been quelled, and sent 7,000 men instead of 2,000 to the Korean peninsula. When the Chinese matched this force, he had civilian transports bring even more reinforcements, which the Chinese thought was a bluff. It wasn't. And the Japanese quickly attacked the palace and deposed King Gojong, installing his father once again. Whereas the Korean intervention began with little support at home, its success met with an outpouring of support and excitement in Japan by August 1894. Japan was overrun with pro-war groups, and school put pro-war songs in songbooks for children. New youth groups began collecting money and donations for a war with China, and schoolchildren drilled on wooden rifles. The excitement spread across political lines. War began with China immediately and Japan steamrolled them. On taking Port Arthur, Japanese troops, outraged by seeing Japanese placed on pikes by Chinese and Chinese attacks on Red Cross tents, began the historic Port Arthur Massacre, killing over 2,000 civilians. But upon taking Port Arthur, Russia, Britain, and France all sent messages "strongly encouraging" Japan to stop and give it back, fearing Japan's very real capacity to march on Beijing and depose the Qing government that allowed Europeans to colonize it. Japan was resentful of this, but realized that they had spent two years' worth of their national budget on the war and could barely afford to continue. China and Japan signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which made Korea autonomous (but in Japanese orbit), granted a large indemnity to Japan so China paid for its own invasion, granted Taiwan and some other islands to Japan, and gave Japan "most favored nation" status in trade with China.

    Japan was building to another conflict not too many years after ending the Korean conflict in 1895. In 1903, Russian forces sent to China to deal with the Boxer Rebellion still had not left Manchuria, and became a large force threatening the Korean border. Meanwhile, Russia was constructing the Trans-Siberian Railroad, which threatened to bring Moscow to Tokyo's doorstep. Japan decided to strike at the harbor in Port Arthur, locking Russian ships in the harbor while they hit them with the big guns. The Japanese took immense losses, however, on land during the war. They were using frontal assaults without nearly enough dispersion, attacking in blocks more like Napoleonic soldiers than those of the twentieth century. Men volunteered for suicide missions as "human bullets," by strapping explosives to themselves and charging into enemy lines. The war did not receive universal support at home, and in one famous poem published in September 1904, Yosano Akiko wrote to her brother at the front, "Oh, my brother, I weep for you/ Do not lay down your life/ You are out last-born/ Most dear to our parents/ But did they teach you to wield a sword/ To take a life/ To kill or be killed/ At twenty-four?" She also mentions that not even the Emperor would go into battle, an invocation of the popular and enduring theme of Japanese politics that the Emperor cannot be wrong, but only poorly advised or misled. The war accounted for 53% of the country's annual budget and also brought Japan to the brink of bankruptcy, but after the defeat of Russia's naval reinforcements at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905, Russia sued for peace. Japan gained little from the war since it was known at peace negotiations that the victory was not total and Japan could not afford to continue. So, Japan got two-fifths of the northerly Sakhalin Island, which enraged the people, causing the Hibiya Riots in which 350 buildings were wrecked or burned down. Despite the riots, tax hikes still came, and there were sharp increases in prices of everything, with food costs rising 30%. More and more Japanese left rural areas and sought their fortunes in the cities or in the frontier lands of Hokkaido, Taiwan, or Korea, where Japan then deposed Gojong and took over Korean government in 1907. By 1910. Korea was completely annexed, and remained the same color on the map for 35 years.

    After the war, Manchuria remained, officially, part of China, but Japan was now stationing troops along the Beijin-Mukden railway with the Kwantung Army, a group of the Imperial Japanese Army, stationed in the area. By this point, war heroes were multiplying like rabbits. The Navy and the Army ended up in a race to produce the most war hero propaganda, placing statues in train stations and anywhere else with heavy through-traffic that commemorated the dead heroes. When World War One came, Japan seized German colonies to the south in the Pacific and expanded their merchant fleet, accounting for 55% of merchant shipping in the Pacific by 1917. However, Japan had become reliant on trade with the United States, importing 90% of steel for ship-building from America, which President Woodrow Wilson suddenly shut down in 1917 due to the need to increase American production. The long-term and immediate results of this were to stimulate Japanese policymakers to find new sources of steel, and within six weeks, Japan sent an expedition into the Chinese hinterland to find local supplies of iron ore in Shandong. Japan passed the Munitions Mobilization Law, which allowed the government to commandeer vital industries in time of war, a law that would become much more important in 1938.

    World War One had a relatively minor impact on Japan, although the author does stress that Japan had done more than is often recognized, sending ships to protect others in the Mediterranean for the Allies. Whereas WWI should have been the moment that changed Japanese military tactics, it didn't. Post-WWI, it was clear that portable machine guns were part of the future, but Japan still focused too much afterwards on bayonet attacks. The high command felt like Japan just kept on winning wars, so why stop now?

    The politics of Japan were not uniformly militarist yet. In 1918, Japan elected Hara Kei as Prime Minister, a Christian, with the slogan "Militarism Is Dead." Hara extended the right to vote to men who could pay a poll tax, so still a minority of the population, and he also tried to remove militarist appointees. However, he was stabbed to death in a train station by an assassin who proclaimed that Hara had no military backbone. The assassination found support among militarists as punishment for his positions. And more assassinations would follow. In February 1932 young navy officers killed Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi and accomplices failed to assassinate Charlie Chaplin, who they thought was American. There would be a militarist coup attempt in 1936. Japan was becoming more militarist and more nationalist when America passed its 1924 Immigration Law that disproportionately excluded Japanese immigrants. Japanese women boycotted American haircare products and stores refused to buy US cameras and toothpaste. It was across the board, as there were thugs who even intimidated those who went to see American movies. Simultaneously, the 1920s saw the Ministry of Education create a Students Division that policed dissidents on university campuses to police un-Japanese ideas.

    In the summer of 1931, soldiers of the Manchurian warlord Zhang Xueliang captured, tortured and executed five Japanese soldiers who were surveying likely areas for invasion routes into the area. This was a mistake. Whatever they were doing, their deaths incited Japanese popular opinion against Manchuria and for a war. Further, in September, Japanese conspirators dressed in Chinese uniforms and blew up a miniscule portion of the Mukden railway, not doing enough to actually damage the tracks for train usage, but causing enough superficial damage to justify calls for war. The Kwantung Army attacked and had won the war in a matter of months. Harbin fell in February 1932 and Manchuria was proclaimed as independent "Manchukuo." Puyi, the last Qing Emperor, was named ruler of Manchukuo. In 1933, the League of Nations condemned Japan as the aggressor and Japan walked out of the League, declaring itself diplomatically autonomous. The path of aggression seems unending by this point, as by late 1933 the military was receiving 45% of the national budget.

    In February 1936, 1,500 men from the Imperial Japanese Army proclaimed the slogan, "Revere the Emperor, Destroy the Traitors," and led armed assaults in the capital against the residences of the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, and other key advisors to the Emperor. 500 men seized the police headquarters of Tokyo and 160 occupied the Ministry of War building, making demands that the War Minister assent to the Showa Restoration, no force be used against them, and a number of arrests be made against those hostile to them. But they failed in six of nine of their planned assassinations. And their successes were even worse for them. All three who were killed were associated with the Navy, making this seem like a coup from the Army against the Navy, and one dead admiral happened to be married to the former babysitter of the Emperor. She called the Emperor directly, who was heard to mutter that she "was like a mother to me." The Emperor signed a declaration of martial law and the rebels were then easily defeated, as most of them never imagined that they were doing anything outside of what the Emperor had ordered. 

    And while Japan dealt with that coup attempt, the Kwantung Army was busy in Mongolia, where is supported a Mongol prince named Demchugdongrub in forming the state of Mengjiang just to the northwest of Beijing. By the end of 1937, Japan would break off one more piece of China, a state controlled by Shanghai stretching all the way to Beijing. And in 1938 it would prop up a puppet government in Nanjing.c In these wars in China, the Japanese committed countless atrocities, most famously at the Rape of Nanjing, and when two Japanese soldiers competed in a killing contest to see who could kill 100 Chinese people first. The only defense offered of them at the 1945 Tokyo Tribunal was that this was part of a strategy to psychologically demoralize the Chinese, in other words, terrorism. Moreover, the Japanese created "comfort stations," which were just brothels, where over 400,000 women were recruited. However, they were viewed as a failure in the high command, since many soldiers preferred not to pay 2-yen when they could take what they wanted for free on the street.

    In June 1940, Army representatives made Lieutenant General Tojo Hideki the Prime Minister. The Emperor was not thrilled since he believed Tojo had been instrumental in the 1936 coup attempt, and harangued Tojo at their first meeting. The new Foreign Minister, Matsuoka Tosuke, forged an alliance with Nazi Germany, and mistakenly believed that since half the American people are of German descent, German-Americans will oppose any war. He later called it the biggest mistake of his lifetime, one which would bother him "even after I die." Of course, it ended up being Japan and Germany that declared war on the United States no more than two years later. He was aggressive towards the US, which mistakenly believed that Japanese foreign reserves were much lower than they were, stoking American overconfidence. While the US was reliant on Japanese silk, Japan was reliant on the US for half its annual copper supply, 60% of machine tools, 80% of oil, and more industrial goods. In July 1941, the US announced the oil embargo and sanctions on Japan, and Japanese leadership determined that war was inevitable. Their options were between writing off all the sacrifices they had made on the Asian mainland or continue to rely on American oil, and they made their fateful choice.

    In the 1942 elections, there was no liberal party, as any left-wing ideology was made illegal in 1940. In fact, the only opposition party held just 7 of 466 seats and was even more right-wing than the government party. In World War Two, Japan quickly ended up on the backfoot, winning only the gyokusai, or "shattered jewel" victories, in which Japanese soldiers showed that they would break instead of bend to the enemy onslaught. After the war, the Tokyo Tribunals sentenced Japanese war criminals based on conventional war crimes and crimes against humanity as well as Class-A crimes against peace. One jdge, Radhabinod Pal, issued an dissent against the idea of crimes against peace, arguing that the Allies had provoked Japan into war and that there was no agreed-upon conspiracy in Japanese government to drag the country into war. But nevertheless, those responsible were executed. 

Miscellaneous Facts:

• Tokyo means "eastern capital," renamed from Edo.
• In 1873, Japan sent envoys as part of the Iwakura Mission to the United States and Europe for several months to learn about the west.
• In 1880, Japan dismissed its French military advisors in a belated response to the Franco-Prussian War (a French defeat in 1870), and became closer with Prussian militarists. 
• In 1889, Prince Nicholas, the future Czar Nicholas II of Russia, toured Japan and got a big dragon tattoo on his arm. One of his Japanese bodyguards also attempted to assassinate him on that trip.
• US Open Door Policy insisted that China not be broken up into colonies, but maintained as a single state to which all interested parties had equal and free access. This is so interesting as I never quite understood the significance of it, but the policy was critical in maintaining China as a single political unit when it may have been divided like Africa.
• Some historians refer to the Russo-Japanese War as World War Zero since it was the testing ground for many of the new tactics that would be used in the First World War
• The Japanese silk trade was so big in the 1920s that 10% of Japan's arable land was used for mulberry orchards for silk worms, and by 1929, the USA was receiving 95% of Japan's silk.
• Japan signed a similar treaty with the USSR like Germany did, guaranteeing it free room to attack others in the prelude to WWII.
• Hawaii was the US state with the most Japanese people, making it impossible to intern such a large population, only rounding up 1,200 of 158,000 in Hawaii compared to 112,000 out of 127,000 on the mainland. There is strength in numbers.
• The Japanese gains in the early days of WWII were so fast and unexpected that Japan couldn't process all 290,00 prisoners.
• 83% of POWs taken by Japan were taken in the first six months of WWII.
• In the Dolittle Raid, one bomber landed in Vladivostok where it and its crew were impounded by the Soviets, and eight were captured by the Japanese, with three executed because their bombs landed on a school. Japan launched a retaliatory campaign in China for aiding the raiders that killed 250,000 Chinese.
• In 1992,a farmer in Henan, China, was discovered to actually be a Japanese spy after he died and was DNA tested. He had been shot in the head during the war and lost his hearing and memory. He was taken in by local villagers and lived the rest of his life not knowing who he was.
• Abe Shinzo's grandfather had been Tojo's Minister of Munitions.

The Open Society and Its Enemies Volume One: The Spell of Plato by Karl Popper

    In the first volume, Popper attacks Plato for his totalitarian opinions, something I really had no idea about until I read this book. Popper writes that a lot of the big misunderstandings of Plato come from either Plato's use of words that imply he is more liberal than he really is, misleading his audience, or of mistranslations. The two words I noticed this the most on are "republic," the name of one of his works, and "justice." When Plato refers to a republic, he doesn't use it in the modern conception that implies the rule of law or governance by the governed. Rather, he just uses it to mean something more like a constitution or the state. Similarly, when he uses "justice," he doesn't mean justice towards the individual in terms of fairness, but a justice that serves the state and does what is good for the state. Plato loves the state and his state loves the ruling class. He attacks individualism and equalitarianism, which are both implicit in the modern Western conception of justice, and supports collectivism, associating individualism with selfishness. He even writes that no one should think for themselves:

The greatest principle of all is that nobody, whether male or female, should be without a leader. Nor should the mind of anybody be habituated to letting him do anything at all on his own initiative, neither out of zeal, nor even playfully. But in war and in the midst of peace- to his leader he shall direct his eye, and follow him faithfully. An even in the smallest matters he should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals ... only if he has been told to do so ... In a word, he should teach his soul, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently, and to become incapable of it.

So Plato is insane. He wants us to live in the most dystopian world imaginable without any free will. I had no idea. And Popper goes on to criticize Plato for arguing that it is unjust for any of us to change station in life or rise up in life because we are not worthy of it, making our social climbing a great crime to the city. Plato even believes that it is the right of the state to lie and deceive its enemies and its own citizens if it is to the benefit of his perfect state. Those lies can be useful for Plato's insane breeding program. Plato wrote that rulers could establish a fake lottery to mate their young and then secretly arrange it like a dog breeder to mate who they think is best while the victims blame their bad luck.

    Plato believes in degeneration and devolution, that the world generally gets worse over time, and that changes are generally bad. It's pretty ridiculous, especially to the extent that he argues that men devolve into women, and women devolve into animals, and birds come from those who are too easy-going, and fish are degenerated from the most stupid men. Okay Plato. But that is all informed by the fact that Plato came from an aristocratic Athenian family and believed that Athens' transition from a divine kingdom to an oligarchy to a democracy to tyranny was a natural, historical progression for the worse that all polities were destined to face. This is developed in Plato's "historicism," a method of analysis that looks to the past to predict the future. A theistic historicism may be the concept of God's chosen people as being destined to inherit the Earth, whereas a racial historicism may be the belief that a chosen race will take over the world, or Communist historicism is that a certain class will conquer all. Historicism may be left-wing or right-wing, optimistic or pessimistic. So when analyzing an institution like a police force, a historicist will look back in time to determine whether it is an instrument of freedom and security or an instrument of class rule and oppression. A "social engineer" or "technologist," (which is what Popper describes himself as), on the other hand, would not try to find the origin or true role of the institution, but instead evaluate it based on how well it serves as a means to an end principle, such as freedom or security.

    Popper synthesizes Plato's political program offered in his many works into two main principles and three lesser principles. The primary principles: (1) the strict division of classes, (2) the identification of the fate of the state with that of the ruling class. The three principles that follow: (1) the ruling class must have a monopoly of things like military virtues and training, being the only group to carry arms and receive education although it may be excluded from commercial endeavors, (2) there must be censorship of all intellectual activities of the ruling class and there must be continual propaganda at uniting their minds, and (3) the state must be self-sufficient without dependence on traders or outsiders.

    Plato believes that, "The wise shall lead and rule, and the ignorant shall follow," a reformulation of Thucydides' "The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must." And Plato writes that there is a paradox of freedom, as a democracy is likely to hand over power to a tyrant. But Popper points out that all theories of sovereignty are paradoxical, because just as democracies may choose to use their sovereignty and freedom to hand over power to a tyrant, a tyrant may do the same to an oligarchy, which may do the same to some other government. So Popper does away with democracy as defined by majority rule and instead says there are only two types of government: a government that can be done away with by elections (which he calls democracy) and a government that cannot be removed by elections (tyranny).

    Popper identifies two competing theories of the state. One is the more basic idea that the state is a protectionist entity, which stops crimes being committed and brings criminals to justice, ensuring negative liberties for its citizens. The other, advanced by Plato, is a state that should look after the moral life of its citizens, which Popper believes inherently moves towards authoritarianism because it would seek to shape the lives of its citizens affirmatively rather than let them do as they please so long as they don't harm another. Popper says the state should educate its citizens enough (for free) that they can "participate in the life of the community, and to make use of any opportunity to develop their special talents and gifts." But he doesn't believe that the state should mold their minds in a way to ensure that students love and defend the state no matter what.

    So Plato ends up with an idea of a philosopher king, ruling over a class of elite aristocrats with all the rights and privileges in society, served by a class of slaves. Popper says this is always one of two results of a utopianism: dystopia. The other is that because this utopia is so difficult to achieve, one does nothing to achieve it and the status quo remains. On the other hand, the piecemeal engineer (Popper) would advocate for small changes being made based on their ability to serve a higher principle better instead of some radical transformation of society. Speaking of Plato's philosopher king system, Popper writes,

What a monument of human smallness is this idea of the philosopher king. What a contrast between it and the simplicity and humaneness of Socrates, who warned the statesman against the danger of being dazzled by his own power, excellence, and wisdom, and who tried to teach him what matters most—that we are all frail human beings. What a decline from this world of irony and reason and truthfulness down to Plato’s kingdom of the sage whose magical powers raise him high above ordinary men; although not quite high enough to forgo the use of lies, or to neglect the sorry trade of every shaman—the selling of spells, of breeding spells, in exchange for power over his fellow-men.

    Popper traces the issues that caused Plato to support such a totalitarian system as coming from the breakdown of tribal society, transforming into an open society, the central conflict of the book. As population growth expanded the class of landed proprietors, it put strain on the separation of the class from others, as soon there would be too many proprietors with too little land for each of them. The organic solution to the problem was to create the colonies in Cyrenaica, Asia Minor, the Black Sea, southern Italy, and the rest of the northern Mediterranean coastline. But this could only postpone the transformation into an open society. The result of this was not maintaining the old, closed ways, but creating a new class of traders and merchants not of the old aristocracy, and creating cities abroad with connections to other civilizations. Seafaring dissolved the old way of life for Athens and other maritime city-states, and so the conservative elites looked to Sparta as a model, which they felt (incorrectly) was still a model of the old way (even though it had changed too). These Spartan principles are (except for the last one) the model of modern totalitarianism: (1) protection of arrested tribalism to shut out all foreign influences, (2) anti-humanitarianism to shut out all equalitarianism, democracy, and individualism, (3) autarky, (4) particularism to uphold the differentiation between one's own tribe and others, (5) the domination, mastery, and enslavement of one's neighbors, and (6) not growing too large. Modern totalitarians usually do all the above except for the final one, as they seek to achieve the unity that comes with smallness at a far greater scale. 

    So the same problem as was found in ancient Athens exists in the modern day and in all of time. The establishment class sees change coming as society opens up and tries to arrest that change to prevent newcomers from taking what they have. They may seek help from the outside to quell the majority on the inside. They will use racism and blame others for the problems of the day (tribalism), and attempt to shut the city, state, or empire off from the world. But they cannot succeed. Popper writes referencing a pamphlet of this kind:

This remarkable pamphlet was to become the first of a practically infinite sequence of works on political philosophy which were to repeat more or less, openly or covertly, the same theme down to our own day. Unwilling and unable to help mankind along their difficult path into an unknown future which they have to create for themselves, some of the ‘educated’ tried to make them turn back into the past. Incapable of leading a new way, they could only make themselves leaders of the perennial revolt against freedom. It became the more necessary for them to assert their superiority by fighting against equality as they were (using Socratic language) misanthropists and misologists—incapable of that simple and ordinary generosity which inspires faith in men, and faith in human reason and freedom. Harsh as this judgement may sound, it is just, I fear, if it is applied to those intellectual leaders of the revolt against freedom who came after the Great Generation, and especially after Socrates. We can now try to see them against the background of our historical interpretation.

And to finish the volume:

For those who have eaten of the tree of knowledge, paradise is lost. The more we try to return to the heroic age of tribalism, the more surely do we arrive at the Inquisition, at the Secret Police, and at a romanticized gangsterism. Beginning with the suppression of reason and truth, we must end with the most brutal and violent destruction of all that is human. There is no return to a harmonious state of nature. If we turn back, then we must go the whole way—we must return to the beasts.

It is an issue which we must face squarely, hard though it may be for us to do so. If we dream of a return to our childhood, if we are tempted to rely on others and so be happy, if we shrink from the task of carrying our cross, the cross of humaneness, of reason, of responsibility, if we lose courage and flinch from the strain, then we must try to fortify ourselves with a clear understanding of the simple decision before us. We can return to the beasts. But if we wish to remain human, then there is only one way, the way into the open society. We must go on into the unknown, the uncertain and insecure, using what reason we may have to plan as well as we can for both security and freedom.

Miscellaneous:

• One thing I did not love about The Spell of Plato was the confusion between the real Socrates and Plato's Socrates. I was not clear on what methodology Popper was using to distinguish the two, and it seemed convenient that the Socrates that Popper likes is the real Socrates and the one he doesn't is Plato's.

Hillel: If Not Now, When? by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin

    I really liked this book, although it is less of a biography than I anticipated. It turns out that we know extremely little about the life of Hillel, and instead we know much more about his views on ethics and Judaism. I really liked Rabbi Telushkin's approach, and he emphasizes something important: that for Hillel, religiosity was measured not by ritual observance to the strictest degree, but by ethical observance and good morality. Moreover, the Torah has an ethical will and ethical obligations, and sometimes literal adherence to the rule of the Torah may lead to violation of its ethical imperatives. In those circumstances, the ethical and fair should prevail.

    Telushkin is very kind to converts to Judaism, emulating Hillel. He writes of how there are three separate stories of converts seeking out Hillel, and how in each situation, Hillel helped them convert as easily and quickly as possible and then aided them in their Jewish education after. I even learned that in the story of Ruth, Ruth converts to Judaism and that her descendants eventually include David, so he is descended from an "impure" matrilineal line. And if its good enough for the King, then it should be good enough for everyone.

    Hillel also urged less judgment of others. Telushkin writes that as a rule, we generally judge ourselves by our intentions while we judge others by their actions. But Hillel said "do not be too sure of yourself until the day of your death," meaning not to be to confident in having overcome your evil inclinations. Telushkin points out that this may be the reason that Judaism focuses more on a person's day of death than their birthday, since that is when we can fully assess if someone lived righteously. Hillel is also the popularizer of the phrase, "do not judge your fellow until you are in his place."

    There's an interesting relationship explored in this book between Hillel and Jesus. Hillel was old enough to be Jesus' grandfather and there is no evidence that the two ever met, but it seems like Hillel may have influenced him. Jesus preached that "treat others as you would like them to treat you," which is an affirmative version of "what is hateful unto you, do not do to your neighbor." Many Christian and Jewish scholars have hypothesized that this reformulation is purposefully taking from Hillel.

    Telushkin ends up focusing on some of Hillel's teachings that come down to four good points. They are:

1. Ethics is the essence of Jewish religiosity.

2. Maintain an openness and receptivity to non-Jews who wish to convert.

3.  Exclude mean-tempered, volatile, and verbally abusive people from the teaching profession.

4. Use tikkun olam to root out any unfairness or unintended cruelty in Jewish law. Tikkun Olam means repairing the world and pursuing social justice.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• The Hasmonean King John Hyrcanus of Israel was a descendant of Judah Maccabee and forcibly converted the Idumeans (descendants of the Edomites) to Judaism, the only known example of mass forced conversion in Jewish history.
• Later Jewish teachings such as the book of Isaiah exhibit desire to spread Judaism beyond the original tribe of Israel.
• The Jewish marriage ceremony comes from oral law and is not recorded in the Tanakh.
• In the 1930s, City College of New York was 80% Jewish. 
• Apparently the disciples of the School of Shammai one day attacked and killed many of Hillel's students, resulting in increased power for Shammai and literalism for a time.
• Telushkin writes that he knows of no Jewish scholar who believes that Jesus thought during his life that he was forming a new religion. Jesus is even quoted as saying that he did not come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets, which Paul disagreed with and preached that they would change the old rules, like getting rid of kosher.
• The Talmud mandates that "We provide financial support to the Gentile poor along with the Jewish poor."
• Hillel is the first rabbinic stage to speak about an afterlife, but he warned people not to focus solely on the afterlife.
• Sukkot was totally forgotten in Israel and brought back by Ezra.

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America by Barbara Ehrenreich

            When Barbara Ehrenreich died earlier this year, I saw a lot of eulogizing about her important role as an advocate for the working class and tons of references to this book so I had to read it. I was really impressed by it. In the book, Ehrenreich describes the experience of working six different jobs in three places (she always needed two at once) to get by in Key West, Maine, and Minnesota. She faces huge difficulties and finds that it is either impossible or that she scrapes by only well enough that she could make it until a crisis came, at which point her savings would be wiped out. There is something patronizing about Ehrenreich engaging in “poverty tourism” but I think that is far outweighed by how important it is for her to be publishing this book. There is something incredibly valuable about a person bringing attention to the issues of working class people by stepping into their shoes, and it reminds me of a similar technique employed by Florida politician Bob Graham to work different jobs across the state.

Ehrenreich also observes that she was certainly no better than anyone else for having a Ph.D. or experience as a higher earners. Instead, she fits in normally with everyone and is perfectly average at businesses full of low and high performers. Ehrenreich ends up focusing on two white areas: Maine and Minnesota, because she realized in Key West, which was more diverse, that she couldn’t get certain jobs because they became reserved for certain ethnic groups. As a white woman in the restaurant business, she was always moved to waitstaff in the front of the house, and she couldn’t get a job as a housekeeper- those went to African-American women or Spanish-speakers.

            For all the privations Ehrenreich was able to suffer through (which I don’t) such as living in poor accommodations, eating rarely, and having to suffer through menial and difficult labor, one thing she couldn’t do without was something I live without: a car. I certainly don’t suffer in my life, but not having a car is such a huge divider of people in America. So much of life requires a car, and Ehrenreich can’t even avoid it. She mentions many times that it costs her a lot of money to keep the car, but it keeps lots more jobs open to her in different places. At one point she even references a Concrete Island by J.G. Ballard. In it, a man crashes his car into a median and gets marooned in traffic. Unable to weave through the never-ending cars, he is stuck surviving off of whatever happened to be in his car.

            I think that one of the best observations the author makes (a few different times) is that managers just get in the way of a good product or service a lot of the time. She writes, “Cooks want to prepare tasty meals, servers want to serve them graciously, but managers are there for only one reason—to make sure that money is made for some theoretical entity, the corporation, which exists far away in Chicago or New York, if a corporation can be said to have a physical existence at all.” This is the loud sucking sound of money flying out of worker’s pockets and into shareholder values. The managers can make more money for the company by improving things, but they can also make more money by economizing, laying people off, and making life miserable, and they often choose the latter. Whereas the maids that the author works with want to do a good job, it is their manager who encourages them to be quicker. He shows them training videos focusing them purely on the visible grime that a customer can inspect, completely ignoring the most important part of the job: actual sanitation and hygiene. The effect of the manager-mindset pervades society-at-large. We cut public services for the poor and invest more heavily in cops and prisons, condemning us to greater inequality from which the only beneficiaries are usually the agents of repression themselves.

            The class division has huge effects on women that Ehrenreich analyzes in depth (which is probably because she is a woman). In one of the places she lives, her window is right on a road, open to anyone’s view from outside if she wants any light. And her lock doesn’t work too well, leaving her feeling vulnerable. Just having a safe shelter is such a big deal. While working as a housekeeper, she works for the wealthy alumna of an important women’s college. She sees in her client’s home that the alumna is now spending time monitoring her investments and her baby’s bowel movements. There are special charts for the baby, with spaces for time of day, fluid intake, consistency, and color. There are books in the house about pregnancy, breastfeeding, and everything involving the early years. While I expected Ehrenreich to write about how disappointing it was for an accomplished woman to be reduced to child-rearing, she saw it another way. Instead, Ehrenreich compares her to Maddy, another housekeeper who struggles with childcare and pays her sister-in-law to watch her toddler. Meanwhile, another of the housekeepers is pregnant and inhaling cleaning chemical fumes all day long. Ehrenreich writes, “Maybe there’s been some secret division of the world’s women into breeders and drones, and those at the maid level are no longer supposed to be reproducing at all. Maybe this is why our office manager, Tammy, who was once a maid herself, wears inch-long fake nails and tarty little outfits to show she’s advanced to the breeder caste and can’t be sent out to clean anymore.” I found this to be harsh and somewhat sexist, but I can understand the bitterness.

            Some of the most difficult things that Ehrenreich faces in her experience are the small difficulties beyond low pay. She describes how difficult it is to change jobs since each new job requires an application, an interview, and a drug test, which requires a lot of running around town when you could be working. And the whole application process works to grind you down. In fact, it is designed to do so at places like Wal-Mart or other big corporations that have it down to a science. When she works at Wal-Mart in Minnesota, Ehrenreich describes how the hiring process never even gives her a point at which she can ask about her wage. She just goes right from the application to orientation without any discussion of the wage or a negotiation. The orientation is long and includes significant portions bashing unions. Ehrenreich quotes the AFL-CIO ask saying that ten thousand workers a year are fired for participating in union organizing drives, always for minor infractions since they can’t be fired for unionizing- that’s the reason for rules against profanity, which serve as a good fig leaf. But it is amazing how even in the late 1990s, when Ehrenreich was writing and the economy was supposedly good for workers in a tight labor market, employers could still make applicants feel like supplicants.

            As Ehrenreich puts it, “Something is wrong, very wrong, when a single person in good health, a person who in addition possesses a working car, can barely support herself by the sweat of her brow. You don’t need a degree in economics to see that wages are too low and rents too high.” One problem with living in a tight labor market is that once everyone is employed, wages rise, and housing costs get higher. Unfortunately, official records don’t record housing costs when calculating poverty, only taking the cost of food and multiplying it by three to determine the poverty line. That’s a problem because in the 60s, when the measure was adopted, food accounted for 24% of an average family budget and housing was 29%. By 1999, food was only 16% of the average budget while housing reached 37%. This is even worse for renters (the poor) because they don’t get the large mortgage-interest deduction on their taxes that homeowners do. At the time of publication, Ehrenreich cites an estimate from the Economic Policy Institute that the living wage for a family of one adult and two children was $30,000, or $14 an hour. This was calculated to include enough for health insurance, a telephone, and childcare, but did not include going out to eat, video rentals, internet access, cigarettes, wine, or very much meat. It is a life of privation. And at the time of publication, 60% of American workers earned less than that. It all comes down to some of the final words of the book, which are probably the most famous that Ehrenreich has ever written:

When someone works for less pay than she can live on—when, for example, she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently—then she has made a great sacrifice to you, she has made you a gift of some part of her abilities, her health, and her life. The “working poor,” as they are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone else.

 

Miscellaneous Fact:

• When Ehrenreich works as a waitress in Key West, she makes $2.43 an hour plus tips. I was blown away since this is still above the tipped minimum wage federally!! I am shocked we’ve gone almost a quarter century without an increase. Instead, it seems like the amounts that we tip have grown, now that the minimum prompt on the payment iPads is usually 20%.

Mussolini by R.J.B. Bosworth

            I found Bosworth's book on the Duce to be a really good informative piece about the dictator, and a lot of it really surprised me. I think that Bosworth was a little too generous at times with Mussolini, although he clearly views the dictator with contempt. It might just come from the fact that Mussolini looks a lot better when compared to Hitler. Hitler was just such an irrational and stupid man, whereas Mussolini had much more substance by comparison. Mussolini was a thug, but he was also an aspiring intellectual, and had some complex thoughts, although they were contradictory and he knew little about how people actually worked beyond what was necessary to manipulate them. By the end, Mussolini comes across as a small and bitter man. I only wish that this book was told more like a novel and Bosworth got more into telling events as they happened, instead of focusing on his commentary. It makes the book less fun to read since the author specifically makes an effort to dull the most interesting parts of Mussolini's life.

             Mussolini was born in a small town in northern Italy to a politically active father who was a socialist. The young Mussolini was considered smart, and spent time as a teacher before becoming a writer for various political papers. He eventually became the leader of Il Popolo d’Italia, a socialist newspaper, and that’s where he was working in the 1910s as war appeared on the horizon in Europe.

On the eve of World War One, most Italians supported neutrality, including Giolitti, the leading Italian politician of the time, the King, big business, the Army, the Pope Benedict XV, most of the peasantry, and most women. Most Italians were not part of the “short war illusion” that predicted the end of the war by Christmas 1914.  But many Italian intellectuals like the young Mussolini (in his early thirties) supported entry into the war as a means of expansionism. Il Popolo d’Italia was not popular at all at this time—it had just 1,600 subscribers—but it was pushing Italy to intervene, claiming it was critical for Italy’s development into a major power.

Italy ultimately decided to go to war in May 1915 with the goal of taking some territory from Austria, not declaring war against Germany until 1916. Italy fought a mountainous campaign against Austria in which five million Italians saw military service, with half a million dying and another half million wounded. Most of the soldiers were peasants, and by 1919, 63% of war orphans came from peasant families. In October-November 1917, Italy suffered a major defeat at Caporetto, bringing Austrian and German troops onto the plains near Milan, but by the end of 1918, Austria surrendered (on November 4, a week before Germany surrendered). Italy’s victory was ambiguous, but helped it gain some territories from Austria. But Italy did not emerge as a modern political state after the war like many other European powers. Whereas England, France, Russia, and Germany all ended the war with more politically activated populations that were bound to the state with new social programs, that never happened in Italy.

Mussolini was a corporal during World War One, and seemed to have been competent on the front. He published his war diary between 1915 and 1917 in Il Popolo d’Italia, speaking in short lines, as one does at war: “It is war time. So you go to war.” “ Trench life is natural, primitive life.” In March 1917, Mussolini was wounded by shrapnel during a grenade exercise behind the front and ran a fever of 40.2 degrees Celsius. By happenstance, Mussolini met King Victor Emmanuel III, who was on an official visit to a military hospital. They exchanged greetings there. When the war ended, Italy was in flux, and Bosworth writes that two words dominated Italian politics: national, describing the nationalization movement, and fascio, an Italian word meaning faction, or league. Fascio became relevant due to the Fasci di combattimento (ex-servicemen’s leagues) that were springing up across Italy, of which Mussolini was a leader. In March of 1919, Mussolini summoned the fasci to Milan along with other former interventionist thinkers, and the Fascist movement was born.

In the aftermath of the war, Italian socialists were triumphant, but forces hostile to socialism could rely on a natural electorate of those who craved a positive memory of the war in contrast to the socialists’ condemnation of it. Mussolini had a political transformation throughout the war. Whereas before the war, he had been a socialist, during the buildup to war he became more nationalist and more interested in what Italy could do on its own, unified. By the end of the war, Mussolini had renounced socialism, and argued that socialists had taken Italy into a civil war based on class war, and that the real conflict was not the socialist one between rich and poor, but the one between national and “anti-national” forces. Mussolini did what all conservatives must do to counter the strength of the poor masses, he had to siphon some of them off by changing the debate to be not about economics but mentality, “not material but spiritual,” as Bosworth writes.

But even though socialists couldn’t count on supporters from those with fond memories of the war, new members were joining socialist unions across the country, and elections in November 1919 gave socialists a majority. At this time, the fasci di combattimento were still divided and small, with 16 different fasci across the country with completely different ideologies. But there was still movement happening on the political right. In August of 1919, Mussolini found the funds to create a new journal, Il Fascio, and in September, the poet Gabriele Annunzio marched 1000 men into the town of Fiume on the Slovenian border and established a “lyrical dictatorship,” declaring himself the defender of the city’s Italian-ness.

In May 1920, there was a second Fascist congress, and Mussolini tempered some of his anti-institutional instincts. He now said that the Vatican was good, and Catholicism could be tied to the state. He was more willing to accept the monarchy as well. The new Fasci directorate had swung to the right. In January 1921, D’Annunzio and his men were forced out of Fiume, which they had taken over a little over a year before, eliminating a major rival for Mussolini. D’Annunzio had shouted “Fiume or death,” but found out that fleeing was always an option.

The instability of Italian government led to new elections in May 1921, and Fascists proclaimed themselves to be outside ideological dogmatism, being both conservative and progressive, reactionary and revolutionary, and aristocratic and democratic, and so on. This made the Fascists acceptable to the Prime Minister, Giolitti, who added them to a national bloc, resulting in wins for the national bloc over the socialists and the presence of Fascists in parliament. Giolitti had unjustified confidence, stating that Fascists were like fireworks: “they’ll make a great deal of noise, but only leave smoke behind.” But they betrayed Giolitti, the 35 Fascists elected immediately abandoned the government, sat on the far right of the chamber, and associated themselves with the opposition. Giolitti’s government collapsed on June 27, 1921, and on August 2, the Fascists made an agreement with socialists and trade unions, and on February 26, 1922, the next government collapsed. All the while, Fascists were marching through the countryside and terrorizing left wingers and strikers, and there was a possibility of a Fascist attack and occupation of Rome, led by Fascist Italo Balbo. Other Fascists pressed for more action. Under the threat of Fascist attack, King Victor Emmanuele III was pressured into offering that Mussolini form a coalition government on October 29. Mussolini proceeded to the capital with wearing his black shirt with 300,000 men and was sworn in as Italy’s youngest prime minister at 39 years old on October 31, 1922. He had risen from being a nobody to being prime minister in under three years.

Once in power, the Fascists grew their party membership, rising from 200,000 in October 1922 to 780,000 in December 1923. Most of this growth came in the south. Once in power, Mussolini put out the word that fascist violence should end, stating in November of 1922 that it "bloodies and dishonors the nation." But it is unclear how serious he was about actually stopping the roving gangs of fascists terrorizing leftists. On December 15, Mussolini formed the Grand Council (Gran Consiglio), which was a sort of parallel cabinet outside of parliament that met in Mussolini's private apartment. The most powerful Fascists were in the Grand Council and not the cabinet, including Italo Balbo, Cesare de Vechi, Michele Bianchi, and Emilio de Bono. The first act of the Council was to create the "Voluntary Militia for National Security," which was a party-led militia ready to stop any Anti-Fascists that would threaten Fascist government, essentially a revolutionary guard. The Council was a major part of early Fascism, meeting 106 times between 1923 and 1929, but reducing in scope, meeting 56 times between 1930 and 1936 and then just 23 times between 1937 and 1940. By the mid-1930s, they met just to be harangued by Mussolini.

In August 1923, Mussolini began his first imperial ventures, conjuring up an international incident over the Greek-Albanian border. In a clash between Italians surveying the border and unknown assailants, and Italian general was killed. The Greeks alleged that bandits did it, but Mussolini claimed it was the Greek government. Mussolini ordered the Italian fleet to ready itself to seize the island of Corfu unless the Greeks accepted severe demands in 20 hours. Some of the demands included that the Greek government attend a funeral ceremony in a Roman Catholic church for the dead and publicly honor the Italian flag as well as paying a large indemnity. The Greeks "were conciliatory," writes Bosworth (whatever that means), but Italy landed troops on Corfu on August 31 anyway and took over the island quickly.

Meanwhile, in November of 1923, a little-known rabble-rouser named Adolf Hitler launched the failed Beer Hall Putsch in Munich. Mussolini apparently showed some interest at the time, but was briefed that Hitler and his associates were "buffoons." But where his comrades failed in Germany, Mussolini sought to strengthen his hand in Italy through elections. The Fascists pushed through the "Acerbo Law" with conservative support, which gave additional seats as a reward to a party that won a majority and over 25% of the vote. While opposed by the liberals, it was had enough support from conservatives who argued that it would unify the nation. In January 1924, parliament was dissolved and elections were scheduled for April 6. While this was constitutional, illegal violence had not stopped outside Rome. The Fascist gangs, known as squadrisi, killed a left-Catholic priest, Giovanni Minzoni, near Ferrara in August 1923, and provincial Fascists continually advocated violence against those who doubted Fascism. By the time parliament was dissolved, it was clear who had the momentum. Elite men from all over the country joined the listone (big list) of Fascist party candidates for the election, and Mussolini cheerfully accommodated the old elite. Mussolini suppressed violence in the run-up to the election and the Fascists appeared to be an establishment party now that they had all the establishment players under their tent. They ended up not even needing the Acerbo Law to gain a majority, but it certainly didn't hurt. Whereas 18 months earlier, Fascism had barely existed, it won half the votes in the north, 76% in the center, and 81.5% in the south. It was the biggest victory in the history of unified Italy, and followed the classic tactic of aligning with Conservatives. Shortly after the election, Fascists kidnapped reformist and liberal Giacomo Matteoti and killed him.

The Matteoti affair became a major scandal. It appears that the Fascists who killed him hadn't planned to kill him, as they dumped him in an easy-to-find spot on the side of the road. Bosworth thinks they may have intended to kidnap him and rough him up but got carried away. It also appears they were not acing on orders, but rather "working toward the Fuhrer," to borrow a phrase from Ian Kershaw. For months the scandal grew, but surprisingly sort of fizzled out when Mussolini took responsibility for running a vicious propaganda campaign. By January 1925, it was over and the King approved a new cabinet. Mussolini was Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of War, Minister of the Navy, and Minister for Aviation. He later became Minister of Corporations from 1926-29, Minister of Colonies from 1928-29, and Minister of Public Works in 1929.

Mussolini was unique in forming Fascism as a political religion, connecting his party to the people in a way never done before. Mussolini developed a public image of charisma and a sort of savagery and athleticism. He was regularly photographed swimming, playing sports, and otherwise looking manly. Bosworth writes of how often he was seen and photographed in the "extrusion of bodily liquids." Mussolini was always sweating, shaking off water during a swim, seen taking off his shirt to ski or join a harvest, all of which was unimaginable to his political contemporaries. Within the state, the Fascists practiced a sort of "institutional Darwinism," in which it was assumed and even encouraged that Fascists in government be in conflict with one another to rise to the top. Public reports about Fascists on the rise usually included details about who supported them and who opposed them. But for all of his ability to bring his persona to the masses, Mussolini did little for them materially. Bosworth writes that, "Just as their fathers had done in 1915, peasants from the Piedmontese mountains thought they had entered paradise when they were conscripted in 1935, because military rations included meat. In the northern Alps, those who stayed at home told an interviewer with some wistfulness in the 1970s: 'Fascism brought us neither gain nor harm. It is as though it had never been.'" I think this is very reflective of what the right wing has to offer: personal connection to the leader and cultural victory over "the left," but little of material value. 

Mussolini's public persona took up most of his life. The Duce took advice from counselors in the morning and made most decisions at night. In his family life, the Mussolinis were becoming more respectable publicly and his children were sent to expensive private schools with the children of the aristocracy. Mussolini kept making more babies too, ending up with six children. But he remained a distant father to those children, preferring the family cat to his own children. His sons became quiet teenagers, and Mussolini usually ate alone. The family did not chat often. Mussolini was also a misogynist, something that got worse and worse as he got older. He would frequently advise young men to avoid the influence of women, and once rhetorically asked an interviewer, "During all the centuries of civilization, has there ever been a woman architect?" While he still enjoyed having sex with women (a lot it seems like), the dictator rarely longed for the company of intelligent women, and became a man's man.

Mussolini and the Catholic Church were not natural allies, but drew close throughout his reign. The young Mussolini viewed the church as a relic; but as a ruler, El Duce saw a use for the Pope. In February 1929, in an opulent ceremony at the Lateran Palace, Mussolini and the Pope Pius XI signed accords making the Vatican City and independent enclave within Rome, and the Church recognized (finally) the unification of Italy, after having been upset about losing Papal territory in Emilia-Romagna. The Church was confirmed in its authority over marriage as well as discipline of dissident priests, and the Fascists agreed to reinstitute compulsory religious education. There was another conflict in May 1931, when the Fascist regime banned the Catholic Action youth organizations, but a compromise was reached by the end of the summer, as the Pius XI recognized the uses of this conservative regime.

In 1933, Adolf Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany, an event that would dramatically effect the course of Mussolini's life. Bosworth explains that at that point, Mussolini had considered a 14 year rule, that would have led to his retirement in 1932. If he had done so, he would hardly be remembered as the monster we see him as today. "He might have entered history as a figure of some light and some darkness." But the rise of the Nazi party to the north changed everything. While the Fascists had spent most of the 1920s ignoring the Nazis, who were just one of many far-right parties in Europe struggling for power, the Nazis certainly spent a lot of time looking to Italy, a potential model of their government. But despite their ideological similarities, the Nazis were lukewarm about Italian Fascism. For one, they considered Italians to be Mediterranean, and therefore the lowest of the European races. One of the leaders of the Nazis, Anton Drexler, even said Mussolini was "probably" a Jew, and declared Fascism to be a Jewish movement (which the Nazis didn't really like lol). Moreover, Italy had taken the side of the allies in World War One, largely viewed as a betrayal by the Germans, and as a result, Italy had gained German territory in South Tyrol at the Versailles peace conference. But Hitler was different from the rest of the party, he saw in Italy an opportunity, and, writes Bosworth, "fanatically driven by Anti-Semitism, Anti-Communism, and Anti-Slavism, Hitler had no room among his prejudices to be Anti-Italian as well." The initial stage in their relationship culminated in 1934, when the two dictators met in June (in Venice), but nothing was set in stone yet. Mussolini still criticized Nazism in his political commentaries, especially its nonsensical race "science."

Economically, Mussolini was a poor leader who also faced difficult circumstances. Italy had long been the weakest of Europe's major powers, and Mussolini had done little to change that when the Great Depression struck in 1929. He displayed little interest in economic matters, and left most of his to his various Ministers of Finance. Like in most fields, he let the experts do their work. But the economy got very important after the Depression, when the Italian stock market lost a third of its value between 1929 and 1932. Italy did worse than most European countries, with its economic output declining from 8.2% of the European total to 8%. Whereas Liberal Italy had grown at 2.7% annually between 1897 and 1913, Fascist Italy grew at just 1.9% annually from 1922-1938, whereas Britain was at 2.2%, Germany at 3.8%, and Sweden at 4.1%.

 Mussolini reached the peak of his power in the mid-1930s, specifically in 1935, when he achieved his great victory in the conquest of Ethiopia. Bosworth differentiates Italy from Nazi Germany by explaining that Nazi Germany's wars of conquest were squarely of the 20th century. They were about getting territory connected to Germany, expelling the residents, and putting Germans on that soil to expand Germany. Italy, on the other hand, was squarely from the 19th century, simply seeking to conquer the last part of Africa not controlled by a European power. Unlike Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy never established a "mass base" of support of expansionism, and its aggression, while heinous and evil, never acquired the "murderous determination" of Nazi Germany. It was more about coloring the map green, more Theodore Roosevelt than Adolf Hitler.

By the time the Fascists came to power in 1922, Italy already controlled Eritrea and most of modern Somalia since the 1880s, and had won Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, combined and renamed Libya, in conflict with Turkey in 1911-12. Italy also won the Dodecanese islands between Greece and Turkey during that war. That said, the conquest of Ethiopia was still a massive new expansion to Italy's Empire. It should just be noted that it sometimes overshadows other evils of Italian imperialism. After all, the death toll of the Ethiopian conquest was lower than that of Libyan "pacification" from 1928-33. That policy of ethnic cleansing drove a population of 100,000 from the interior into concentration camps near the coast where many Libyans died of hunger and disease. Fascist rule killed some 90% of the livestock in Cyrenaica. Only half of the original deportees survived to the point when the camps were broken up in 1933.

Critically, the invasion of Ethiopia cast Italy out of Europe, showing Italy to be hungry for power in a way that isolated it from other powers. Only Germany, thanks to the personal beliefs of Hitler and the ideological similarities between the two, would support Italy's endeavor. The growing distaste for Mussolini was not just in the halls of government; political journalists also condemned Mussolini's adventurism, and Mussolini responded by expelling the more critical journalists. Italy invaded in October and marched into Addis Ababa in May 1936. Italy suffered just over a thousand casualties while Ethiopia was overwhelmed by bombing and poison gas, despite treaty obligations to avoid it. Once in control, Mussolini ordered a "systematic policy of terror and extermination against rebels and any in the population who favor them," and after the assassination of the local Fascist chief, Fascists responded with massacres that may have killed as many as 30,000. Through the blood of Ethiopians, Mussolini stood on top of the world.

But the "adventure" in Ethiopia was also the basis of Mussolini's downfall. Now pushed further into the arms of Hitler, Mussolini set events in motion that would tie their fate together. As early as 1936, Mussolini told the Austrian Foreign Minister that Italo-German relations were much closer since Germany had not joined the sanctions bloc on Italy after his invasion of Ethiopia. In November of that year Mussolini declared Germany and Italy to be "an axis around which all European states... can revolve." Italy also became the power most involved in Spain, supporting Franco in becoming the dictator in a war from 1936-38. Between 1935 and 1938, Italy spent almost as much of its GNP on military as Germany and spent twice as much as Britain and France. From 1934 to 1940, the military and colonial budgets of Italy took up 51% of government expenditure.

And Germany was a horrible ally. After promising Italy that he would not act in Austria without mutual agreement, Germany invaded Austria without telling Italy in March 1938, expanding German territory to border Italy in the northeast on the River Brenner. Mussolini was embarrassed publicly, and later commentators have identified this as the moment that Italy was made completely dependent on Germany as the junior partner. And Germany kept acting aggressively and irresponsibly, taking Italy along with it. Germany also seized the rest of the Czech lands in March 1939 (Mussolini was not informed). It was at this time that Mussolini began to adopt more German ways of thinking, and became more racist in his speeches. He even claimed privately that his family was "nordic" because they were from northern Italy and his children instinctively married other northerners. He declared that they wouldn't be known as Mediterranean, but Aryan. Mussolini unconditionally supported Kristallnacht, and passed laws banning marriage with Jews in the style of the Nuremberg laws. Of course, like most other racists, Mussolini and his followers all had their "good Jews," who they thought were exceptions, and it seems like the majority of the Fascist elites were protecting a Jew or helping a Jew escape the country or Europe. All in all, Mussolini's racism, and that of the government, was always somewhat half-hearted, doing as the Germans told them, but not complying to the extent that Eastern Europeans did with gusto in the wake of German invasion.  

Italy was forced to be the junior partner by not only the massive demographic differences (a German population of 80 million compared to 40 million Italians), but also because Mussolini, in nearly two decades in power, had failed completely in the economic sphere. By 1942, Italy would only be able to produce the number of planes in one year that the United States could make in a week, and Italians were starving as GDP actually fell during the war. Italy was still a poor country, and Italian officials begged Hitler not to take them into a war. And he replied that he wouldn't. And then he did anyway. By this point, Italians felt paralyzed by fear of the Nazis, and once again, when the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was signed, no one told Mussolini. After Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, Italy continued to ask for delays through the spring of 1940 until Italy joined Germany in June, the absolute high point of German power after the blitzkrieg conquest of France, truly buying high and then selling low. They had no idea that in just a year Germany would invade the Soviet Union and bring it all crashing down on them. Bosworth points out that really Mussolini was very patient, more than Italian politicians were patient in World War One. He waited until it was clear that Hitler had won the war against France, and joined right before the Battle of Britain began. It seemed like brief participation in a short victory. 

On October 28, 1940, Italian forces tried to invade Greece to seize some territory like the Germans had, but they were immediately revealed to be incapable. Their clothes fell apart in the rain, thye had no mechanical or logistical support, and within six weeks they had lost all momentum. Meanwhile, the Italian "Empire" in Libya and Ethiopia crumbled and Haile Selassie was back in power by 1941. Spain played the whole situation much smarter. Franco had the excuse that he was still recovering from the Civil War and said that bad harvests made it impossible to go to war. That was clearly the right move, and by the end of 1941, he must have been sure he chose correctly.

Once Allied forces were seriously bombing Rome, it was over for Mussolini. The Grand Council ended up voting him out of power, and he was relieved of his office by the King. It is here where I am most critical of Bosworth's writing style. He sometimes writes as if all the actual events are something for the reader to look up elsewhere, while he is just a commentator. But we could use some drama! We could use some narration of what happened. Mussolini's death is introduced in the prologue, but when it happens chronologically in the book, we just skip over it. What a mistake! But that said, Bosworth is best in his analysis of the emotions and the character of the individuals he describes. Speaking of Mussolini's affair with Claretta Petaci, Bosworth writes, "Mussolini's craving for such solace was no doubt meant to counter that brutal misanthropy which came so easily to his lips when he was at the office - in his search for a soft escape from the cruel public world, Mussolini was doing what many a male executive in his fifties has done before and since. Playing the part of sentimental sugar daddy with Elena and Claretta, he could fudge the grim memoranda piling up on his desk and forget the lack of human content left in his relationships with his colleagues. There he could try to resuscitate a 'real' Mussolini, and forget for a moment the burden of his charisma." And then there's another great passage desribing his bitterness: "Back in May 1941 Mussolini had angrily dismissed Roosevelt as a statesman: 'Never in history', he told his son-in-law, 'has a people been ruled by a paralytic. There have been bald kings, fat kings, handsome kings and even stupid ones, but never a king who when he wants to go to the toilet or to dinner must be assisted by other men.' It was a typically brutal outburst. However, by the end of 1941 Mussolini had allowed the underdeveloped Italian economy and fragile and divided Italian society to be pitted against both the USA and the USSR. In such an uneven contest, it was Benito Mussolini who was to learn the meaning (and the cost) of paralysis."

Bosworth ends the book by writing that Mussolinian Fascism is fundamentally of its time and is not reproduceable today in anything like its original form. The problem is that the right wing must always make compromises with the market, and that is why Fascism could not succeed as an ideology. Fascists can't achieve the autarchy they seek, so they end up just being a movement all about image and bluster without substance. And Mussolini's true legacy is being one of the first of a new generation of politics based so much more on propaganda and appearances than ever before. Bosworth rights of the dictator that "he turned out to be no more than an ambitious intellectual from the provinces who believed that his will mattered and who thought, as did others, that he was a Duce and could lead a state like Italy towards a special sort of modernization. His propagandists declared that he was always right. However, in the most profound matters which touch on the human condition, he was, with little exception, wrong."

Miscellaneous Facts:

• Rome fell on June 4, 1944, which was the original date for D-Day, delayed until June 6. Naples had fallen much earlier on October 1, 1943.
• Mussolini was named Benito after the Mexican revolutionary Benito Juarez.
• When Italy was unified in 1860, only 2.5% of Italians spoke the national language rather than a regional dialect.
• Mussolini learned to fly in 1920, and survived a crash in March 1921. Later on, he piloted a plane with Hitler on it in August 1941, terrifying Hitler.
• Almost all the characteristic symbols of Fascism came from “below.” The use of the Roman salute came from Verona, the wearing of the black shirt coopted from the Arditi, and the scouting movement came from the Balilla at Piacenza.
• In 1928-29, Mussolini collaborated with dramatist Giovacchino Forzano on a play about Napoleon, and was cited as co-author when it was performed outside Italy. Apparently it did very well in Budapest.
• Mussolini was not nearly as interested in race as Hitler. He was casually anti-Semitic, but did not stand out among the Italians of the time. In fact, at a meeting with Pope Pius XI in 1932, it was the Pope who was far more anti-Semitic, blaming all the world's problems on the "anti-Christian spirit of Judaism." Interestingly, Pius acknowledged that "In Italy, however, the Jews are an exception." There seems to be a lot of exceptionalism among Italians of the time who were anti-Semitic but still found room for Italian Jews, who they liked.
• There's this weird "Four Power Pact" that Mussolini tried to push with Britain, France, and Germany to solidify European borders (probably so that he could divert his forces elsewhere). The Pact was signed in July 1933, but it was never ratified.
• While many Italian Fascists felt they were fighting against Bolshevism, but the Italian Fascist state still maintained a relationship with the USSR, succeeding in making arms deals throughout the early 1930s.
• Just something interesting: Bosworth identifies a similarity between the Italian conquest of Libya and the conquest of Ethiopia. Both were marked by years of stability coming to an end, and Italy seizing colonial territory just before the outbreak of a World War.
• Mussolini described his Fascist ideology well in a letter to the Greek General Metaxas, who staged a coup in the 1930s. Mussolini advised him to create a single governing party, a single youth organization, a single organization of employers and employees, and a dopolavoro, or an organization dedicated to entertaining the masses after work.
• Germany got an early start on deporting people, taking Germans across the border from Italy to Germany to change the ethnic makeup of border regions.
• Mussolini didn't like Christmas since it celebrated the "birth of a Jew who presented the world with theories which weakened and emasculated it."
• Mussolini's son Romano became a jazz pianist and married Sophia Loren's sister. They had a daughter who is Alessandra Mussolini, a right-wing Member of European Parliament and a member of the same successor-to-Fascism party as Giorgia Meloni, the Prime Minister.

Atlas of the Heart: Mapping Meaningful Connection and the Language of Human Experience

     What I really liked about this book was its accessibility. The whole point of the book is to take complex emotions and separate them out to more narrowly identify what one is actually feeling. It uses the concept of emotional families like a sort of "emotion wheel" to help us narrow down what we actually feel. For example, resentment is not part of the anger family, but part of envy, since we usually feel resentment towards those who have what we want. In my own thinking, resentment is like the other side of contempt. Whereas resentment comes from a place of inferiority, contempt comes from a place of perceived superiority, since you often feel contempt for someone you think is dumber than you, weaker than you, or otherwise worse than you.

    Something else that is interesting is that we gain emotional complexity as we grow. Like how children are unable to distinguish between sarcasm and irony (according to some researchers cited in the book) until they are ten or eleven years old. Then, after understanding the difference, it is a few more years (usually) before individuals begin to understand the humor in sarcasm as teenagers. 

    Another good distinction in the book that stood out to me was the difference between compassion and pity. Whereas compassion feels open, pity sets up separation between the person and the other that they feel bad for. Pity is marked by a sense of distance, whereas being compassionate is about closeness. Pity involves a belief that the other person is inferior, a self-focused reaction, a desire to maintain emotional distance, and an avoidance of sharing in the other person's suffering. Then there is shame, which is focused on the self, compared with guilt, which focuses on the act. We feel shame about ourselves as we are, whereas guilt is about what we've done. Whereas shame is correlated with addiction, violence, aggression, and depression, guilt is negatively correlated with those behaviors. Humiliation, on the other hand, is imposed from another, and is usually undeserved. Embarrassment is imposed by ourselves, and is usually smaller than humiliation. 

    There is also a lot of very useful advice and some good techniques in this book. Some are good for just thinking about ourselves, and others are useful in relationships. One technique useful just as an individual is self-compassion. Self-compassion uses self-kindness instead of self-judgment, common humanity instead of isolation, and mindfulness instead of over-identification. That means that to be self-compassionate, we focus on forgiveness of ourselves, acknowledgment of the difficulties all people face, and recognition of the emotions passing through us rather than identifying as a person who always feels that way. In relationships, Brown discusses the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" that can doom a marriage or a relationship, citing John Gottman. The four horsemen are criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt. But we can convert each of these into something better. Criticism, using "you"-focused language, can be converted to "I" language. So instead of saying, "why do you always make us late?" you can say "I feel frustrated that we keep arriving late." Then, instead of victimizing oneself by being defensive, you can take responsibility. Just apologizing goes a long way where being defensive can aggravate a situation. Then, instead of stonewalling and simply withdrawing from interaction, it can be better to self-soothe, which involves announcing that you need a timeout to calm down. It can be productive to temporarily end an argument and come back to it later. Finally, there is contempt, which is the most dangerous feeling. Instead of attacking your partner as a person, it is better to describe your own feelings and needs, and eliminate the feelings of superiority that can develop contempt.

The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality by Katharina Pistor

     The Code of Capital is a cool book that is all about the interactions between the law and the economy. Pisotr writes that contract law, property law, corporate law, bankruptcy law, and trusts are the building blocks that give the attributes to assets that privilege its holder. The law goes on to rank competing claims to assets, extend those claims over time and space, and allow holders to claims on assets into state money on demand, protecting their value. The book is very theoretical at times, but then also very grounded when she gives examples throughout. Critically, Pistor is constantly coming back to the fact that there is no capital and no capitalism without the protection of the state, and that without state power to enforce claims to capital, the capitalist economy could not function. She even quotes Adam Smith, who wrote that "Property and civil government very much depend on one another. The preservation of property and the inequality of possession first formed it, and the state of property must always vary with the form of government."

    With regard to corporations, Pistor is critical of how the trust and corporate structures allow individuals to hide behind the corporate veil, and identifies corporations as capital minting operations that can partition assets and shield them to access low-cost loans and find favorable tax and regulation regimes. She compares corporations to partnerships, writing that because partners put their own money at risk, they tend to be more cautious since they aren't investing other people's money like corporations do. However, partnerships tend not to last as long because they only last as long as the partners want to cooperate and have the resources to do so, whereas a corporation may outlive all of its founders.

    I found the section on intellectual property to be very interesting. Pistor started by quoting Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who claimed that "the noblest of human productions-knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas-become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use." But that idea has been completely flipped on its head since he said it in 1918. In fact, the Supreme Court decided in 2013 that merely isolating DNA sequences may not be a patentable process, but distinguished some more artificial forms of DNA manipulation as patentable.

    One of the most significant points that comes up over and over in the book is how the legal systems of New York and the city of London dominate the world economy. Today, 40% of all contractual disputes in the world are governed by English law with another 17% governed by the laws of New York. But is it because of the unique aspects of the common law, or for some other reason, like the fact that the UK and the USA have both been great sea powers? Pistor writes that common law systems tend to have bigger and more liquid financial markets than civil law countries like France, but I am not sure there is a causal relationship there like she implies. Bu she gets into some interesting comparative law in the book. Pistor writes that in the UK, litigants usually don't have client contact and are known as barristers, whereas the transactional lawyers are known as solicitors. Meanwhile, Germany trains young people in the legal profession to be judges first, and then they may enter private practice as attorneys.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• Between 2002 and 2015, the US Patent Office granted 4.6 million patents. Only 12% went to individuals while 43.5% went to foreign companies and 44.1% went to US companies.
• Ther Netherlands abolished patents in 1869.
• In 1984, the top fifty law firms in the USA had on average 259 attorneys and an average revenue of $3.4 million. But by 2006, the average top-fifty law firm employed 974 attorneys and brought in revenue of $40 million annually. Whereas the average partner in 1984 made about $300,000 annually, the average partner in 2006 made $1.5 million.