Paul writes: “Bob, I’ve seen you post this thought at least
once, and maybe even twice before. I’ve got to ask you: what do you think are
the practical implications of this analysis? Because I can’t see any, beyond
not being misled into thinking everything would be great if it weren’t for
America. I could easily see hawks and doves, neocons and internationalist
socialists all accepting this analysis.”
This comment raises two questions, the second of which is
the point of the comment, to which I will get in a moment. The first question
is, why do I post the same thoughts several times? In response, I can only
quote one of my favorite passages from Plato’s dialogues. It appears in the Gorgias, when Socrates is talking with
Callicles. Callicles complains, “Socrates,
you always keep saying the same thing over and over again!” And Socrates
replies, “not only that, Callicles, but on the same subjects, too.” Since the
truth never changes, one has no choice but to say the same thing over and over
again. That is why Kierkegaard considers repetition to be the essence of the
ethical and novelty the essence of the aesthetic. There is, of course, also the
fact that when you get to be 86 it is hard not to repeat yourself sometimes.
But now onto the really important question: what, if any,
are the practical implications of my analysis of great power Imperial
competition? Paul remarks that he could see everyone in the political spectrum
agreeing with what I say, seemingly implying that this is a criticism of it.
The truth is actually rather deep and it will take me more than a few sentences
to start to answer his question.
The great tradition of modern political theory, starting in
the 17th century, focuses almost entirely on the foundations of the
legitimacy of the individual state. Indeed, some of the early social contract
theorists observed that kings of different countries were in a state of nature
with regard to one another, concluding that there could not be a political
theory of their relationships. All the great political theorists – Locke,
Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant – write in this manner. Marx understood the problem
quite well and argued that since the state under capitalism was nothing more
than the executive committee of the ruling class, and since capitalism was
moving inexorably toward a full-scale international system, only a worldwide
revolution by a united working class could fundamentally change the terms of
world politics. When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917, they
understood this quite well. But, of course, there was no immediate prospect of
a worldwide socialist revolution. A debate broke out over whether it was
possible to establish socialism in Russia independently of what was happening
in the rest of the world. Stalin and Bukharin argued for what came to be known
as “socialism in one country.” It made no sense, but one can feel a certain
sympathy for them. As I have remarked before, it was probably asking a little
much of them, having seized control of a very large country, to conclude that
there was nothing for it but to scrounge around for some capitalists and asked
them to develop a full-scale capitalist economy in Russia while waiting for the
international workers movement to catch up.
Let us indulge for the moment in the fantasy that I and my
comrades somehow come to power in the United States. I think I can at least
begin to think coherently about what domestic policies I would wish to institute.
But even if these were successful – continuing for a moment with the fantasy –
what foreign policy would I choose to adopt for the United States? Fortress
America? Active intervention in the politics of other nations for the purpose
of advancing the interests of their working classes? A revised and broadened
United Nations designed to avoid war while freezing in place the existing
internal affairs of the constituent countries? A division of spheres of influence
among the major nuclear powers?
Simply to list these alternative possibilities is to
indicate how complex and vexing this question is. Perhaps I should go back to
talking about Plato.
You've repeated that bit about repetition many times. It may be apt when the truths being repeated are so abstract as to embrace much of the ground covered by statements plausibly regarded as true or false. For at that level of abstraction there is not much ground to tread, and one is bound to sometimes step where one has stepped before. Closer-in, though, where true and false statements range over vast terrain, Socrates's reply is unconvincing. If you need an excuse for repetition - and this is your blog, so it is not clear you do - a less haughty one would be more compelling.
ReplyDeleteI myself do not consider a joking reference to Plato haughty, but I guess hauteur is in the eye of the beholder. By the way, Callicles' complaint was that Socrates was talking about commonplace things.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be two ways of taking Professor Wolff's comments about Socrates above.
ReplyDeleteThe first to believe that by following the example of Socrates he is comparing himself to Socrates.
The second is to believe that by following the example of Socrates he is simply using Socrates as an example of a wise person, whom he wants to emulate.
Generally, when people cite someone as an example of wise behavior, say, Socrates or Buddha or Jesus or Spinoza or Martin Luther King or Simone de Beauvoir, they merely give that example as one to emulate and I see no reason to question that Professor Wolff is using the example of Socrates in the second sense which I note above.
Haughty? (And earlier this week, "bland and hackneyed.") Sheesh...for providing a free, enjoyable, regularly updated educational service, Professor Wolff sure does get a lot of undeserved grief from anonymous and semi-anonymous commenters. Thanks for keeping up the blogging in spite of that.
ReplyDelete