Our Major Surprise in Asia Minor
By Robert Higgs on May 30, 2009 in Politics, Presidential Power, Property Rights, The State
Although forced population movements are not unique to the twentieth century, as anyone of Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, Chickasaw, or Choctaw ancestry can attest, such atrocities are among the greatest disgraces of the past century. One of the earliest such movements in this era was the population exchange between Turkey and Greece under the terms of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which settled the conflict from which the modern Republic of Turkey emerged.
Like most Americans, I know little about Turkey or the history of the territories its present government controls. So I consider the way in which I spent the evening of Monday, May 25, as one of my life’s wholly unexpected experiences. On that occasion, my wife Elizabeth and I found ourselves in the village of Şirince, high on a mountainside about nine kilometers from the town of Selçuk, which itself is about three kilometers from the ruins of the fabulous city of Ephesus, one of the greatest metropolises of the ancient world.
By a series of events unlikely to have happened to anyone but a certain lovely, vivacious, and outgoing Louisianan (a.k.a. my wife), Elizabeth, who had gone to Selçuk earlier on Sunday while I was still occupied with business elsewhere in Turkey, had become acquainted with an affable carpet dealer by the name of Aydin. Through him, we met Metin, a young man who works with or for Aydin. (In Turkey it seems that everybody works with or for a great many others, who are described in most cases as brothers, cousins, uncles, or nephews.) Both Aydin and Metin speak good English and have spent time in the United States.
Metin had previously kept a shop in Şirince, and he took us there on Monday evening, when Aydin, who had promised to take us, was diverted by business dealings. The village was nearly deserted when we arrived just after sundown, and almost all of the shops had closed. Metin informed us that the village had been inhabited for many generations by Greeks, whose houses were built in the customary Greek style (the style in which they remain today, at least on the outside). In the early days of Mustafa Kemal’s (Kemal Atatürk’s) reign as modern Turkey’s founding strong man, these Orthodox Christian people had been expelled in the great population exchange and replaced by Muslim Turks who had previously lived in Greece.
With no tourists swarming in the streets, our stroll around the village before dinner was pleasant and unimpeded. We then sat down to have dinner at a restaurant whose menu was extensive and inviting and in which for an hour or more no one else was being served. In response to our questions about present-day relations between Turks and Greeks, Metin indicated that he had nothing against Greeks. “Problem is not people,” he averred. “Problem is always governments.” In reaction to this delightfully unexpected libertarian statement, we expressed our wholehearted agreement.
When Metin inquired as to how we liked President Barack Obama, we replied that we dislike all politicians. He nodded as if he understood and agreed with our sentiment. Then, after a brief pause, he said. “But there is one who is different.” After pausing again, as if he were searching his mind, he said simply: “Ron Paul.” Quickly following up, he declared emphatically: “I love Ron Paul!” Nearly struck dumb by this amazing declaration, we asked how he knew about Dr. Paul. He said that everybody in Turkey knows about him, and many Turks like him better than other politicians. When we informed him that we are personally acquainted with Dr. Paul, it was almost as if we had told him we are personally acquainted with some world-famous celebrity. Elizabeth confessed to him that although she normally steers clear of politics, she had joined a meetup group to promote Dr. Paul’s Republican presidential candidacy and had placed a big Ron Paul sign in front of our house. Instant solidarity!
On Tuesday, we talked about Ron Paul with Aydin, who shares Metin’s enthusiasm for the Texas congressman and expressed a desire to bring him to Turkey to be elected president. I daresay Turkey could use such a leader, under whom there certainly would be no collectivist state atrocities such as the heartrending Greek-Turkish population relocations of 1923. As we left Aydin’s shop for our final departure from Selçuk, we could hear him speaking to another man. Although we could not understand what he was saying in Turkish, we did catch the recurrent words “Ron Paul.”
That’s so awesome.
Ryan | May 30, 2009 | Reply
That’s amazing!
Shed Plant | May 31, 2009 | Reply
As a graduate student majoring in Ottoman history, I can say that in fact nobody in Turkey has heard of Ron Paul, save for the more int’l media-savvy in Turkey. You should really look into reading about the formation of modern Turkey before making comments such as what it needs in terms of leaders—I can tell you that Turks wholeheartedly reject the so-called “rugged individualism” of America and are very prone to share property and look after their own. A feature we in America have lost. On bookshelves in Turkey, you will find more Karl Marx, Louis Althusser than Milton Friedman.
JL | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
This just proves there are perceptive, intelligent people in all lands and nations.
David | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
I’ll be smiling the rest of the day!
robert | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
JL: How is sharing property or looking after your own incompatible with freedom and peace? You think individuals can’t be virtuous without having their morality policed?
Anthony Gregory | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
Great piece. “Everyone in Turkey” knows Ron Paul. Ha ha, that’s sad because I don’t think half of Americans know who he is.
Robert | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
Wow, what an interesting story!
Norman Horn | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
JL: Government collectivism does not champion the virtues of charity or generosity. Those virtues are only achieved through the free choice of an individual.
Justin DeWind | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
JL – Did you really just equate being a graduate student in Ottoman history with being omniscient in contemporaneous Turkish pop culture? Further, don’t you see the irony in making the same type of overstatement as that made by Metin? Funny.
Reid | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
The world could use more leaders that Encourage freedom in such an eloquent way that it facilitates us leading our self’s.
Jim | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
I am sure Ron Paul is not very well known in Turkey. However, there is no lover of freedom, worth his or her salt, that does not know who Paul is.
Franklin | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
Who said Ron Paul was against sharing things?
I thought he was only against government stealing those things from you to “buy votes” from . . . er I meant share them with who they choose…
Rich | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
This story made my night.
HKing | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
Ron Paul is probably not well known in Turkey. His name and concept of liberty are virtually unknown in my country, Bosnia. A project of emulating the Campaign for Liberty is underway to change all that. Do a little research about Ron Paul activism outside the USA, and you may get surprised.
Yadranko | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
And what in the world does Ron Paul have to do with Milton Friedman.
.. I think JL needs to keep studying, bc he’s obviously caught in a common misunderstanding about “free markets” and what some neocons call “free markets”. For reference, see “The Shock Doctrine”.
Voodoo Chile | Jun 1, 2009 | Reply
The Ron Raul message could be more easier spread if more people checked out freedom-inspired songs from my website.
Click on to the songs “A New Me” and “Billionaire”.
fred stein | Jun 2, 2009 | Reply
“How is sharing property or looking after your own incompatible with freedom and peace? You think individuals can’t be virtuous without having their morality policed”
–> The real question is what do you mean by freedom and peace? Capitalism in Turkey is equated with the brutal impositions set down by Menderes in the 1950s and the CIA-backed coup of 1980. And I never said that individuals needed to be policed, where you get that from I have no idea.
“Government collectivism does not champion the virtues of charity or generosity. Those virtues are only achieved through the free choice of an individual.”
–> Nowhere did I imply that.
“Did you really just equate being a graduate student in Ottoman history with being omniscient in contemporaneous Turkish pop culture? Further, don’t you see the irony in making the same type of overstatement as that made by Metin? Funny.”
–> Pop culture? First, we are talking about American domestic politics in Turkey, not Sezen Aksu (Wikipedia). Secondly, we are talking about an extremely slim minority of Turkish citizens who even know who Ron Paul is and what he represents. As of now I am earning my PhD in Ottoman history and contemporary Turkish politics and so, I can make broad statements just like any other person who specializes in a field. There is no irony involved, because while Metin has lived in America and might have some knowledge about outspoken figures in the Republican Party, he does not specialize in this area. Likewise, if a Frenchman were to come over to America and I were to state unequivocally that everybody in my country has heard and loves Jean-Marie Le Pen (Godforbid), I think most of us would be scratching our heads.
JL | Jun 2, 2009 | Reply
JL says…”A feature we in America have lost”
These are the two places where you implied it.
1. “Turks wholeheartedly reject the so-called “rugged individualism” of America and are very prone to share property and look after their own. A feature we in America have lost. ”
Enlighten us as to when we lost it. What caused the loss? Why did we have it before we lost it? How do you plan to bring it back?
2. “On bookshelves in Turkey, you will find more Karl Marx, Louis Althusser than Milton Friedman.”
I am not a big fan of any of those three, but that statement does have implication, especially, when viewed in the context of number 1.
S Andrews | Jun 2, 2009 | Reply
To JL
Again, you appropriate Milton Friedman to individualism and capitalism when Friedman was not a pure laissez-faire economist but a monetarist.
Dustin | Jun 2, 2009 | Reply
“Enlighten us as to when we lost it. What caused the loss? Why did we have it before we lost it? How do you plan to bring it back?”
It is quite simple really and in fact is a trend with an industrialized (or post-industrial) country, where the emphasis is entirely based on finding unequal exchanges. In countries such as Turkey, the view from the outside isn’t one in which they’d like to be apart of, and have resisted it militantly. I don’t plan to bring anything back, just making an observation.
“I am not a big fan of any of those three, but that statement does have implication, especially, when viewed in the context of number 1.”
Since you’re not a fan of either of the three, I’m also going to take a leap of faith here and say that you probably haven’t even read any of their either. Government collectivism? Where does Marx support government collectivism? So no, there is no implication with “1″ here.
JL | Jun 2, 2009 | Reply
“. . . are very prone to share property and look after their own.”
I agree with you JL, but the difference with the scenario described and Karl Marx is that the above is voluntary, not forced.
rob dee | Jun 2, 2009 | Reply
Apparently you know nothing about Turkey or Turkish people. There are a lot of bazaars (traditional markets) in Turkey where most traders are a free-market believers. I have met several Turks who we compare in the U.S. to Libertarians.
tapdrum | Jun 3, 2009 | Reply
JL says…“It is quite simple really and in fact is a trend with an industrialized (or post-industrial) country, where the emphasis is entirely based on finding unequal exchanges. “
You don’t say you lost some excrement in the potty after every time you go. Because you don’t normally use the term “lost” in context of things to which you assign no value. So obviously you implied that America lost something valuable.
You didn’t answer the questions—when, what caused? Why did it exist to begin with?
Fair enough, you don’t want to bring it back. But I wonder why? When you consider what we lost to be valuable, why not suggest a way to bring it back even if you consider it not worth your time to make the effort.
You answered nothing.
As for your leap of faith, you are mostly correct, I have not read two of those three.
S Andrews | Jun 3, 2009 | Reply
I met some new friends on a trip to Amsterdam just for wearing a Ron Paul t-shirt. The Revolution is global!!!
WorldRevolution | Jun 3, 2009 | Reply
The Turks are mass murderers. If one of them knows Ron Paul, great. Why is he still in Turkey? They kill Kurds everyday just because they are Kurds. They kill Christians any chance they are given. Because a guy knew about Ron Paul, I could care less. I don’t believe in any pre-emptive wars or declaring war on others. Turks have always gone through the region pillaging people for no reason at all. What I do believe in is defending your country from invaders. The Balkans showed the Turks how that happens and you can see that by the stats in Turkey. 25% of Turks descend somehow from the Balkans (after they got kicked back). Ron Paul or individual rights will never come to Turkey, pointless to speak of it. Some “libertarians” act as if nothing was done to these people, then they would be freedom loving saints! Well last time I checked during, 1392 no one did anything to the Ottomans at all. So because everyone else was minding their own business they shouldn’t have been attacked right?!
Moral of the story. Never trust a Turk.
Turk | Jun 3, 2009 | Reply
“Apparently you know nothing about Turkey or Turkish people. There are a lot of bazaars (traditional markets) in Turkey where most traders are a free-market believers. I have met several Turks who we compare in the U.S. to Libertarians.”
–> Really? Please enlighten me, after all I live there and associate with quite a wide variety, from working class to bourgeois in addition of course, to studying economic history of the Ottomans and Turks. Of course merchants themselves always want to not pay taxes, want to fix prices, etc. Talk to any Turk and whether you use the term “free” market or capitalism, they’ll always you how they would prefer something else. Again, their experience has been through various coups as well as foreign penetration into their market, which has quite a history in and of itself.
“You don’t say you lost some excrement in the potty after every time you go. Because you don’t normally use the term “lost” in context of things to which you assign no value. So obviously you implied that America lost something valuable.”
–> You’re knocking on the open door on this one; yes, I did in fact say America did lose something, a certain aspect of community which many countries still successfully maintain, such as Turkey.
“You didn’t answer the questions—when, what caused? Why did it exist to begin with?”
–> The answer for this will take pages, and given that, I’d prefer to answer briefly. First, when and where: Industrialization, Manchester, England and eventually Waltham, Mass. and New England and the Mid-Atlantic (in general). We’re talking mid- to late-19th century (even earlier, I would argue in terms of the Luddite movement). The flight from the countryside to more urban areas broken down the traditional family-run, family-operated artisan shops and looms where the means of production were owned by the family. The advent of the early forms of the modern factory which sprung up in coal regions such as Yorkshire, England, were able to out-produce these more traditional means and so the family often relocated to the cities, often the husband first, followed soon by the wife and kids. The traditional maternal role of the wife had to be scrapped when living standards began to plummet, and so women really had no choice but to divide their time between factory work and taking care of the kids. Kids as well, as some of you probably know, were also “encouraged” to work at earlier ages. There were even instances, where a pre-adolescent boy woke up at 5-6am to go to the coal mines, and often come back as very late in the evening, not having the opportunity to see daylight for most of his adolescent life. The trend continues, until labor unions started to evolve to agitate for workers’ rights such as fair pay, set-hours, etc. One early reaction to the disintegration of the average wage of the worker who owned his own shop in the countryside was to literally go around and destroy different mechanized forms of labor (Luddites). I can go into why mechanized forms of labor were a threat to the worker, but I think that would potentially take us off topic. Though I would be happy to explain.
“Fair enough, you don’t want to bring it back. But I wonder why? When you consider what we lost to be valuable, why not suggest a way to bring it back even if you consider it not worth your time to make the effort.”
–>It is a fair point and to be perfectly honest, I think most of the answer to that involves understanding where we are today in relation to our economy, or our social relations. Specifically our understanding of commodities, because it is more than just whining about “materialism this” or “materialism that”. I would love to see a much deeper sense of community emerge in the US today, but it won’t happen with the type of economy we have, to simply put it.
“You answered nothing.”
–> I could have sworn I did, but sometimes it is a matter of selecting what you wish to hear. I hope this time around I have “answered” your questions.
JL | Jun 4, 2009 | Reply
JL: If America has less a sense of community than it used to, this cannot be blamed on laissez-faire capitalism, since America used to be much, much more laissez-faire and is now much, much more of a welfare state. In fact, I agree that American social values, including a sense of community, have declined, but I think it’s clear welfarism and other big-government trends have contributed to the decline.
Anthony Gregory | Jun 4, 2009 | Reply
Anthony, has laissez-faire capitalism ever existed in America? Can you give me a time period?
JL | Jun 4, 2009 | Reply
JL: Pure laissez-faire capitalism—as in, anarcho-capitalism—has never existed in the United States, no. But the U.S. resembled a true free market far more in the 1890s than today, for example. It was the relatively free market that caused industrial giants to begin losing their market share and to lobby for government intervention into the economy to their market power. The Progressive Era and all that has followed have entrenched corporatism into our economy, moving away from free markets and a sense of community to welfare statism, big government and the corporate climate you resent today.
Anthony Gregory | Jun 4, 2009 | Reply
So if “anarcho-capitalism” never had existed at least in the U.S., then it is hardly correct to assume that it would have brought closer community values. A truer free market in the 1890s? You mean when the Pinkertons used to beat and harass striking workers, coercing them to go back to the factory? Or the 1890s at the height of Taylorism, which basically dehumanized the workplace?
As far as government intervention and the Progressive Era, I believe it was Woodrow Wilson who once stated Since trade ignores national boundaries, and the manufacturer insists on having the world as his market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down.” Yes, you are right: more government interference in the market place, but for the benefit of, not the misfortune.
JL | Jun 4, 2009 | Reply
JL: What we do know is moving away from freedom has been a disaster. And Woodrow Wilson was completely in bed with the biggest corporate interests—especially the banking interests, most particularly the Morgans, who supported the Progressive Teddy Roosevelt to split the vote and swing the election to Wilson. Wilson was also a police statist who threw people in prison merely for criticizing his horrible war and mass conscription. Among the many victims of “progressive” Wilson was Eugene Debs, the socialist candidate, who was imprisoned merely for giving a speech in opposition to the draft. It wasn’t until Harding that these political prisoners were freed. Strange precedent for a liberal of any sort to admire.
Anthony Gregory | Jun 4, 2009 | Reply
“JL: What we do know is moving away from freedom has been a disaster. And Woodrow Wilson was completely in bed with the biggest corporate interests—especially the banking interests, most particularly the Morgans, who supported the Progressive Teddy Roosevelt to split the vote and swing the election to Wilson. Wilson was also a police statist who threw people in prison merely for criticizing his horrible war and mass conscription. Among the many victims of “progressive” Wilson was Eugene Debs, the socialist candidate, who was imprisoned merely for giving a speech in opposition to the draft. It wasn’t until Harding that these political prisoners were freed. Strange presedent for a liberal of any sort to admire.”
–> First of all, describe exactly what you mean by “freedom” because we’re probably working with two very different definitions here. Also, I mostly agree with everything you said there, I think liberals are often ignorant of their own history and are guilty of some unconscious revisionism. I’m guessing you think I’m a liberal, which I am not.
JL | Jun 4, 2009 | Reply
JL: Well, I have nothing against revisionism. I think all good history attempts to revise our understanding to improve it.
I thought you might be some type of liberal, in the broad sense. What would you call yourself?
I define freedom in terms of individual liberty—personal freedom, free association, civil liberty, free markets and peace. Freedom from government control of all sorts.
Anthony Gregory | Jun 4, 2009 | Reply
Well, yes, I agree but usually revisionism in its more formal sense of meaning tends to have a somewhat negative connotation (e.g., Holocaust revisionism, Armenian Genocide, etc.). Again, that’s more semantics than anything else really.
Well, perhaps to the surprise (or maybe not) I’m a Marxist. I tend to use the term “liberal” in its more European/global aspect, not so much with its more American definition.
Thanks for your definition, I would only disagree with the free market, and would like to underscore my disdain for bureaucratic, hegemonic government as well.
JL | Jun 4, 2009 | Reply
JL: Have you read Kolko? I believe he’s a Marxist and uses a Marxist method in his history. His works The Triumph of Conservatism and Railroads and Regulation are good analytical looks at the political economy of the Progressive Era and what brought on the modern regulatory state.
Anthony Gregory | Jun 4, 2009 | Reply
JL: Have you read Kolko? I believe he’s a Marxist and uses a Marxist method in his history. His works The Triumph of Conservatism and Railroads and Regulation are good analytical looks at the political economy of the Progressive Era and what brought on the modern regulatory state.
No, I haven’t but I see the state as supportive of capitalism and I would imagine that Kolko would probably agree. According to historical materialism, the economy is the foundation and the state is more or less the political articulation. Interference in the market is only short-term and often more damaging than helpful, yet curiously we do see a steady progression of worker rights from the late 19th century onwards. Yet liberals cannot claim this as a triumph of the state–not at all. And neither does this have anything to do with the so-called free market, but socialist activists and trade unionism.
I tend to read more about early-modern economics of the Ottoman Empire, so I am not as well-versed as you regarding the Progressive Era. I can only say that liberals have a lot to answer for in labeling Wilson or even later presidents such as FDR heroes of the working class…
JL | Jun 4, 2009 | Reply
My problem is this claim that the US economy is actually a socialist economy because of its highly regulatory nature, supported by institutions such as the FED and of course the IRS. This sort of logic basically understands that any crisis or in the case of Turkey, neoliberalization could never be a crisis of capitalism, but only socialism. With such logic it is difficult to make any claims about whether capitalism works, because according to this argument there never has been and there never will be some abstract pure form of capitalism in which there is no government, no coordination of banking, no corruption, etc. This bourgeois conception of capitalism as a self-regulating system of free and voluntary exchange is an abstraction.
JL | Jun 5, 2009 | Reply