joyment of autonomy—and only at the expense of tradition,rnprovinciality, localism, and prejudice. He failed to notice thatrnthis process of destruction and consolidation concentrated unprecedentedrnpower in the state —power that could be put to usesrnquite other than that of being an umpire in the game of conflictingrnautonomies. The rich tapestry of independent socialrnand political authorities had limited the power of the monarch.rnHe could not order universal conscription, nor could he imposernan income tax.rnBut modern states, ruling in the name of the individual,rncould do both. And with a glut of revenue and men, their warsrnwould be awesome barbarisms. There would be more casual-rnHes in World War I (over eight million battle deaths and six millionrnmutilated) than in the two preceding centuries of war inrnEurope. World War 11 would mingle civilians and combatants,rnleaving over 50 million dead. But war was not even the half ofrnit. Nearly four times as many have been killed by their own governments’rnpursuit of ideological goals as have been killed in allrnof the wars fought around the globe in the 20th century. Andrnmost of this murder has been carried out in the name of the individual’srnautonomy.rnThis is a hard saying, but true. The ideologies of Marxismrnand liberalism have the same goal: maximizing the autononivrnof the individual. And both have the same enemies: independentrnsocial authorities and religious tradition. The differencernis that liberals are willing to accept a certain amount ofrnclass inequality for the sake of the market, whereas Marxists insistrnthat autonomy is not available to all unless classes are eliminated.rnAs liberals destroyed smaller polities and traditional authorities,rnMarxists raised the ante by also destroying classes. AndrnMarx did the liberals one better by arguing that, if classes wererneliminated, the state itself would wither away—though he acknowledgedrnthat a brief Hobbesian transition period (“the dictatorshiprnof the proletariat”) would be necessary. In the biddingrnover the individual’s autonomy, manv thought that Marxists offeredrnthe better deal. But let us look at what happened to Russia.rnUnder the czars of the late 19lh centur}’, Russia was a flourishingrnsociety. By 1907, it was the world’s fourth-largest industrialrnpower, hi good years, it accounted for 40 percent of worldrnwheat exports; the literacy rate of its military conscripts was 68rnpercent; and it had scored achievements in the arts and sciencesrnequal to any European country. In the 80 years prior to thern1905 Revolution, the czars executed an average of 17 people arnyear. By contrast, accordirrg to R. J. Rummel, the total numberrnkilled by the Soviet reginre is around 62 million. The czar’s securityrnforces in 1895 amounted to only 161 agents supported byrnless than 10,000 police. By contrast, in 1921 the Soviet Chekarnemployed 240,400 agents supported b’ the Red Army, NKVD,rnand miliHamen. After Lenin, Russia would become an importerrnof grain, and its once flourishing culture would be dominatedrnby “political correctness.”rnCan there be any doubt that the individual was better off underrnthe czar, whose power was hedged in by the Church, nobility,rnprovincial authorities, and other traditions? But this is notrnhow the individual has been taught to see things. He has beenrntold, and has come to believe, that the comnrunist revolutionrnwas an inevitable reaction to the impossibly oppressive and reactionaryrnregime of the czars. He thinks that the oppression ofrnthe Soviet regime—which he does not like to talk about for veryrnlong-was the continuation of a Russian authoritarian tradition.rnHe cannot see that the Soviet state was an EnlightenmentrnEuropean regime ruling in the name of the individual’s autonomy.rnHe does not understand that the first totalitarian regimernwas that of the French Revolution, legitimated by the ideologyrnof the rights of nran; and that the Soviet terror was the FrenchrnTerror writ large.rnIn addition to the threat of mass destruction, the individualrnwould suffer from anomie. To be rooted is one of the deepestrnneeds of the human heart. But the modern state, in its pursuitrnof autonomy, progressively destroyed those traditions and localrnsovereignties that make place possible. The individual increasinglyrnfoimd himself to be a unit in a sterile, abstract, uniformrnmass culture. He had rid himself of traditional authorities, onlyrnto be controlled and shaped by bureaucratic managers.rnIf the individual should ever wake up (as the prodigal sonrndid), he would see that an ethic of autonomy cannot stand on itsrnown. Choice-making is not enough. Choices must first bernmeaningful, and that presupposes a cultural background againstrnwhich significant choices can be made. But culture is not possiblernwithout traditional authorities. Michelangelo, Shakespeare,rnand Mozart are exemplars of individuality, but theyrnwere also firmly rooted in traditional societies. They were substantialrnindividuals who gave substantial form to matter. Howrnare they to be compared to the adolescent individualism ofrnEmerson’s “transcendentalism,” Nietzsche’s “transvaluation ofrnall values,” or Sartre’s existentialism? The followers of thesernphilosophers all rail against mass cnlhire and conformity, butrnnone of them has anything to offer but negative transcendence.rnThey are not critics of the modern bureaucratic state but creaturesrnof it, and they can be at home onlv there. Nietzcheans (asrnthe example of Kojeve shows) make good bureaucrats. crnHesperusrnby Bradley R. StrahanrnTime sunders this vessel,rnmore sieve than sailboat.rnUnder a small star, acrossrnthe shadows of years we go.rnLight crackles in our nrouths,rnso dry and bright each wordrna measured note blown outrnlike lights of cities, sea-swallowed.rnWe search the shore but our wordsrnhae turned to reeds that must bernsliced to sound. Like sailsrnthey wait for the wind to speak.rn20/CHRONICLESrnrnrn