Revolution is the Hell of It: Algerian Edition
In 1968, Abbie Hoffman famously wrote a book called Revolution for the Hell of It.
In 1973, this negatively inspired David Friedman to write a chapter called “Revolution is the Hell of It.”
Last month, I watched The Battle of Algiers, probably the most famous pro-terrorist (or at least anti-anti-terrorist) movie in history. If you don’t know the sordid history of the “liberation” of Algeria, you should. The whole movie is gripping, but this little speech by terrorist Ben M’Hidi stayed with me. Though the writers probably intended the speech to be an inspiration rather than a warning, it’s a vivid vindication of Friedman over Hoffman.
BEN M’HIDI: Do you know something Ali? Starting a revolution is hard, and it’s even harder to continue it. Winning is hardest of all. But only afterward, when we have won, will the real hardships begin.
Which raises the obvious pacifist question: “Then why start?” Committing evil deeds when the benefits are large and reliable might be justified. Committing evil deeds when the benefits are deeply speculative is absurd.
Am I really going to defend colonialism? No. As I’ve said before, both colonialism and anti-colonialism are blameworthy expressions of violent nationalism:
But don’t you either have to be pro-colonial or anti-colonial? No. You can take the cynical view that foreign and native rule are about equally bad. You can take the pacifist view that the difference between foreign and native rule isn’t worth a war. Or, like me, you can merge these positions into cynical pacifism. On this view, fighting wars to start colonial rule was one monstrous crime – and fighting wars to end colonial rule was another.
In the case of Algeria, however, I should add that native rule turned out to be vastly worse.
The post appeared first on Econlib.
There's a book by Simon Murray, Leggionare, about his time in the French Foreign Legion during the 60s attempted coup on GeGaulle, also The Centurions (forgot the authors name, but worth looking up if interested). One of the most fascinating events of modern history, where the generation of soldiers who lost during World War 2, suffered defeat in Indochina (Vietnam), and then sent to Algeria, these soldiers finally found in the pied noires (French Algerians - they had been there by this time, in some cases, since the 1830s - over 130 years) people they would literally not surrender. So, they got an Air Force General on board, attacked an airfield and attempted an air drop on Paris to depose DeGalle when he ordered them home.
In otherwords, there's a *lot* of juicy history for those interested here. Worth reading into if you're a history nerd like me.
the American Patriots shouldn't have fought to free themselves of British rule. Would that have been a better world?
French partisans shouldn't have fought against the Nazi occupiers?
Czechs, Hungarians, Poles shouldn't have fought to free themselves from Russia and before that Austria?
This logic makes sense in some cases, maybe, but it seems to take a one size fits all stance that doesn't fit in many cases.