Thanks, Alex, for a timely lesson in American history and economics which Americans are in dire need of.
From the 1776 American Revolution to today the British elites have been continuously at war against the U.S. to corrupt and re-colonize America by promoting ideas of the Empiricist philosophers Adam Smith, John Locke etc. through Lord John Maynard Keynesian and Bertrand Russell.
Alexander Hamilton, the architect of the American System, Ben Franklin and John Quincy Adams were each and all indispensable in creating a Republic based on promoting the Common Good and Brotherhood of Man.
Hopefully, your post will renew Americans re-discovery of their cultural roots as Thinkers!
I like the depth of this essay, its very interesting!! And I share some of its core feelings. You do a good job of criticizing centralized power consolidation and its negative effects vis a vis regional underdevelopment. But from my perspective, while you rightly skewer the of Benthamite the cynical sidelining of host communities, your misplaced in regards to Hamilton's vision there, in fact, Hamilton was an advancer of the very sorts of forces you eloquently criticize.
Hamilton’s model was from the start a blueprint for top down control, and its natural progression was the sort of centralized institutional phase space America found in the the Second Bank along with the broader cartelized, elite-coordinated system the Jacksonians dismantled. Theres no bad luck that determined that evolutionary path, it was always central planning by design, embedded in banking charters, politically favored monopolies, and interlocking patronage networks like the Society of Cincinnati and the Biddle network in Philly, among others. The centralized financial system became the coordinating hub for a coalition of entrenched interests, Northern financiers, already established merchant-industrialists, plantation elites, etc., who used it to control credit allocation, stifle regional independence, and ensure that economic and political power remained in the hands of a elite narrow class that was on the verge of becoming an outright American aristocracy that would have snuffed out the democratic project before it had even really begun. It was an attempt to fix the national economy in place, under elite management, and to preempt the possibility of a more democratic and diversified development path. the Jacksonian's undoing of this system was a structural correction that re-opened the door to pluralistic growth and true regional semi-autonomy including in economic matters.
That system worked great. The decades following the Bank War saw the explosion of local and state banks, infrastructure funded and managed by communities, regionally tailored policies, and widespread opportunity creation across geography and class. The result was rapid, distributed industrialization and the emergence of a wider and more pluralistic political economy, one in which localities could shape their own destinies. The tragedy is that Hamilton’s system was ultimately revived and actualized in a stronger form (that is possibly approaching its final form if nothing is done about it) by the advent of so called Neoliberal Era, which resurrected and globalized the very concentration of power the Jacksonians dismantled.
I super agree with your mourning of the betrayal of host communities and the squandering of infrastructure’s potential as a shared civic good. But to complete the story, we must acknowledge that the answer isn’t a return to Hamiltonian command centralization or JFK’s postwar megaproject optimism that envisioned nearly no local part in the creation of the idea to be pursued or its design, it’s a neo-Jacksonian model: a political and economic architecture based in decentralization, regional semi-autonomy, deliberate economic and governmental redundancy, variability in policy, and local financial empowerment.
Thank you for your comment... I agree that centralized tools, without republican purpose, can easily become instruments of elite control. But Jacksonian decentralization cannot build an alternative that is capable of channeling investment into national development, making our country vulnerable to subversion and managed decline. That's why the British and other oligarchic forces eagerly encouraged efforts to balkanize the United States, whether it was stoking the fires of the Civil War, or today's efforts towards "bio-regionalism." Without centralization we cannot have freedom, as the "Hamiltonian means to Jeffersonian ends" saying goes.
Hi, thanks for the reply!!! But your arg seems to hinge on a false dichotomy:: and that is that we have to choose between decentralization and national development. That flies in the face of both the historical record and our ability to reason through system effects, the usa did some of its biggest, most integrative national projects, transcontinental railroads, canal systems, electrification, telegraph expansion, massive land grant university networks,, huge scale military mobilization, all during time periods when we remained largely financially decentralized. From the Jacksonians through the Progressive Era, and then even through the New Deal and into the first half of 1960s, our country maintained a patchwork of regional banking systems, state-chartered institutions, and local semi-control over capital formation. It wasn’t until the Neoliberal Era that we dismantled those systems and fully centralized finance, and that’s when investment stopped reaching most of the country!
You say without centralization there can be no freedom?! Whats that even supposed to mean?! So without extreme concentrations of power and decision making into a relatively tiny number of hands we simply cant have freedom?! Thats obviously dumb. I guess theres more to the point, if so please explain. The record shows the opposite: it was decentralization that allowed localities to govern themselves, experiment, and flourish.
Even the Civil War—a tragic but complex event—was not the product of too much decentralization but of a slaveholding oligarchy that feared it was losing its grip as democratic forces (including decentralized financial ones) gained ground. And again, we remained financially and economically decentralized into the early 1960s and the idea that the USA was "balkanized" in the 1940s and 1950s is simply preposterous (we didnt even become very deeply financially centralized until the latter 1970s/early 1980s and the finishing touches were put on it until circa 2000! we certainly were not "balkanized"!)
And here’s the key question: why should we accept a system where only deeply centralized power and decision making into the hands of a relatively tiny few are allowed to have a say in the decision making related to capital capital, when history shows that a decentralized system with overlapping capital markets, redundant institutions, and regional autonomy produced more innovation, more prosperity, more infrastructure, and a vastly wider distribution of opportunity? National-scale capital markets have always existed, but when they weren't monopolized, they served the nation. We dont need “Hamiltonian means to Jeffersonian ends”, we need a return to policy variability, equal opportunity, and the restoration of our democratic governance structures.
Thanks, Alex, for a timely lesson in American history and economics which Americans are in dire need of.
From the 1776 American Revolution to today the British elites have been continuously at war against the U.S. to corrupt and re-colonize America by promoting ideas of the Empiricist philosophers Adam Smith, John Locke etc. through Lord John Maynard Keynesian and Bertrand Russell.
Alexander Hamilton, the architect of the American System, Ben Franklin and John Quincy Adams were each and all indispensable in creating a Republic based on promoting the Common Good and Brotherhood of Man.
Hopefully, your post will renew Americans re-discovery of their cultural roots as Thinkers!
Thank you Charles!
I like the depth of this essay, its very interesting!! And I share some of its core feelings. You do a good job of criticizing centralized power consolidation and its negative effects vis a vis regional underdevelopment. But from my perspective, while you rightly skewer the of Benthamite the cynical sidelining of host communities, your misplaced in regards to Hamilton's vision there, in fact, Hamilton was an advancer of the very sorts of forces you eloquently criticize.
Hamilton’s model was from the start a blueprint for top down control, and its natural progression was the sort of centralized institutional phase space America found in the the Second Bank along with the broader cartelized, elite-coordinated system the Jacksonians dismantled. Theres no bad luck that determined that evolutionary path, it was always central planning by design, embedded in banking charters, politically favored monopolies, and interlocking patronage networks like the Society of Cincinnati and the Biddle network in Philly, among others. The centralized financial system became the coordinating hub for a coalition of entrenched interests, Northern financiers, already established merchant-industrialists, plantation elites, etc., who used it to control credit allocation, stifle regional independence, and ensure that economic and political power remained in the hands of a elite narrow class that was on the verge of becoming an outright American aristocracy that would have snuffed out the democratic project before it had even really begun. It was an attempt to fix the national economy in place, under elite management, and to preempt the possibility of a more democratic and diversified development path. the Jacksonian's undoing of this system was a structural correction that re-opened the door to pluralistic growth and true regional semi-autonomy including in economic matters.
That system worked great. The decades following the Bank War saw the explosion of local and state banks, infrastructure funded and managed by communities, regionally tailored policies, and widespread opportunity creation across geography and class. The result was rapid, distributed industrialization and the emergence of a wider and more pluralistic political economy, one in which localities could shape their own destinies. The tragedy is that Hamilton’s system was ultimately revived and actualized in a stronger form (that is possibly approaching its final form if nothing is done about it) by the advent of so called Neoliberal Era, which resurrected and globalized the very concentration of power the Jacksonians dismantled.
I super agree with your mourning of the betrayal of host communities and the squandering of infrastructure’s potential as a shared civic good. But to complete the story, we must acknowledge that the answer isn’t a return to Hamiltonian command centralization or JFK’s postwar megaproject optimism that envisioned nearly no local part in the creation of the idea to be pursued or its design, it’s a neo-Jacksonian model: a political and economic architecture based in decentralization, regional semi-autonomy, deliberate economic and governmental redundancy, variability in policy, and local financial empowerment.
Mike,
Thank you for your comment... I agree that centralized tools, without republican purpose, can easily become instruments of elite control. But Jacksonian decentralization cannot build an alternative that is capable of channeling investment into national development, making our country vulnerable to subversion and managed decline. That's why the British and other oligarchic forces eagerly encouraged efforts to balkanize the United States, whether it was stoking the fires of the Civil War, or today's efforts towards "bio-regionalism." Without centralization we cannot have freedom, as the "Hamiltonian means to Jeffersonian ends" saying goes.
https://spacecommune.substack.com/p/breaking-america-how-bioregionalism
Hi, thanks for the reply!!! But your arg seems to hinge on a false dichotomy:: and that is that we have to choose between decentralization and national development. That flies in the face of both the historical record and our ability to reason through system effects, the usa did some of its biggest, most integrative national projects, transcontinental railroads, canal systems, electrification, telegraph expansion, massive land grant university networks,, huge scale military mobilization, all during time periods when we remained largely financially decentralized. From the Jacksonians through the Progressive Era, and then even through the New Deal and into the first half of 1960s, our country maintained a patchwork of regional banking systems, state-chartered institutions, and local semi-control over capital formation. It wasn’t until the Neoliberal Era that we dismantled those systems and fully centralized finance, and that’s when investment stopped reaching most of the country!
You say without centralization there can be no freedom?! Whats that even supposed to mean?! So without extreme concentrations of power and decision making into a relatively tiny number of hands we simply cant have freedom?! Thats obviously dumb. I guess theres more to the point, if so please explain. The record shows the opposite: it was decentralization that allowed localities to govern themselves, experiment, and flourish.
Even the Civil War—a tragic but complex event—was not the product of too much decentralization but of a slaveholding oligarchy that feared it was losing its grip as democratic forces (including decentralized financial ones) gained ground. And again, we remained financially and economically decentralized into the early 1960s and the idea that the USA was "balkanized" in the 1940s and 1950s is simply preposterous (we didnt even become very deeply financially centralized until the latter 1970s/early 1980s and the finishing touches were put on it until circa 2000! we certainly were not "balkanized"!)
And here’s the key question: why should we accept a system where only deeply centralized power and decision making into the hands of a relatively tiny few are allowed to have a say in the decision making related to capital capital, when history shows that a decentralized system with overlapping capital markets, redundant institutions, and regional autonomy produced more innovation, more prosperity, more infrastructure, and a vastly wider distribution of opportunity? National-scale capital markets have always existed, but when they weren't monopolized, they served the nation. We dont need “Hamiltonian means to Jeffersonian ends”, we need a return to policy variability, equal opportunity, and the restoration of our democratic governance structures.