diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'essays/three_levels_of_politics.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | essays/three_levels_of_politics.tex | 214 |
1 files changed, 214 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/essays/three_levels_of_politics.tex b/essays/three_levels_of_politics.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d629be6 --- /dev/null +++ b/essays/three_levels_of_politics.tex @@ -0,0 +1,214 @@ +\chapter{The Three Levels of Politics} + + +Political activity and its results can occur on three levels. The first level +is the personal one. An individual may vote to re-elect a local politician +because of patronage he has received, for example. On this level the +individual's motivation is narrow, immediate self-interest. Often the action +has a defensive character; the individual is trying to hold on to something he +already possesses. + +The second level may be called the historical level. It is exemplified by +the Civil War in the United States. Certain political movements result in +largescale, irreversible social change. The Civil War set in motion the +industrialization of the United States, as well as abolishing slavery. In 1860, +slavery was viewed by large numbers of Americans as a legitimate institution. +One hundred years later, even American conservatives did not often defend +it. To re-establish a plantation economy in the South today would be out of +the question. These observations prove that on the second level, society +really does change. On this level, political action does make a difference. + +However, there is a further aspect to the Civil War which indicates that +politics does not make the difference people think it makes. According to +the ideology of the abolitionists, the accomplishment of the Civil War would +be to raise the slaves to a position of equality with whites. In fact, nothing of +the sort happened. The real accomplishment of the Civil War was to +transform the United States into an industrial capitalist society (and to +abolish an institution which was incompatible with the capitalists' need for a +free labor market). By the time the Northern businessmen brought +Reconstruction to an end, it was clear that the position of blacks in +American society was where it had always been: at the bottom. The Civil +War changed American society, but is did not make the society any more +utopian. On the contrary, it brought into prominence still another violent +social conflict---the conflict between labor and capital. + +The third level of politics has to do with the utopian aspect of modern +political ideologies, the aspect which calls not only for society to change, but +to change for the better. Typical third-level political goals are the abolition +of war, the abolition of the oligarchic structure of society, and the abolition +of economic institutions which value human lives in terms of money. in all +of human history, society has never changed on this third level. + +The successful Communist revolutionists of the twentieth century (in +the underdeveloped countries) have repeatedly claimed to have accomplished +third-level change in their societies. However, these claims of third-level +change have always turned out to be illusions which cover a recapitulation of +capitalist development. Communist revolutions are typical examples of real +second-level change which is accomplished under the cover of claims of +third-level change, claims which are pure and simple frauds. + +By introducing the concept of levels of politics, we can resolve the +apparent paradox that society certainly changes, but that it really does not +change. It is important to understand that empirical evidence on the +question of the levels of politics can only be drawn from the past, the +present, and the immediate future (five to ten years). Recent technological +developments have brought into question the very existence of the human +species. In addition, technology is developing much faster than society is. It +is meaningless to discuss the issue of second versus third-level social change +with reference to the more distant future, because there may not be any +human society in the more distant future. + +This essay is concerned with the politics of the third level. The first and +second levels are certainly real enough, but we are not the least interested in +them. As we have just said, we make the restriction that any empirical +analysis of the third level must refer to the past, the present, or the +immediate future. Our purpose is to present a substitute for the politics of +the third level. + +There are a number of present-day political tendencies which hold out +the promise of third-level social change. These tendencies are all descended +from the leftist working-class movements of nineteenth century Europe, +most of them by way of the early Soviet regime. The promises of third-level +change held out by these tendencies are nothing but cheap illusions. What is +more, a careful examination of leftist ideologies in relation to the historical +record will show that the promises of third-level change are extremely vague +and without substance. Beneath the surface of vague promises, leftist +ideologies do not even favor third-level change; they are opposed to it. + +One example will serve to demonstrate this contention. In my capacity +as a professional economist, I have become familiar with the official +economic policies---the doctrines of the professional economists---of the +various socialist governments and leftist movements throughout the world. It +should be mentioned that most of the followers of leftism are not familiar +with these technical economic policies; they are aware only of vague, +meaningless promises of future bliss coming from leftist political +speechmakers. When we turn to technical economic realities, we find that +virtually every leftist tendency in the world today accepts economic +principles which in the parlance of the layman are referred to as +"capitalism." The most important principle is stated by Ernest Mandel: "the +economy continues to be fundamentally a money economy, with the +satisfaction of the bulk of people's needs depending on the number of +currency tokens a person possesses." When it comes to the realities of +technical economics, virtually every leftist in the world accepts this +principle. So far as the third level is concerned, there is no such thing as a +non-capitalist polical tendency, and there is no point in hoping for one. A +similar conclusion holds for virtually every aspect of third-level politics. +Leftists claim that Communism eliminates the causes of war; while at the +same time war breaks out beween China and the Soviet Union. + +We propose to draw a far-reaching conclusion from these +considerations. Returning to the example of first-level politics, it is rational +for the patronage-seeker to be in favor of the election of one focal politican +and against the election of his opponent. This is a matter which is within the +scope of human responsibility, and with respect to which individual action +can make a difference. But it is not rational to be either for against +"capitalism," to be either for or against war. As we have seen, "capitalism" +and war are permanent aspects of human society, and no political tendency +genuinely opposes them. It is meaningless to treat them as if they were +within the scope of human responsibility in the sense that the election of a +local politician is. in other words, the third-level aspects of society are not +partial, limited aspects which can be eliminated by conscious human action +while the bulk of human life is retained. The only way you can meaningfully +be against the third-level aspects of human society is by adopting a different +attitude to the human species as such. + +This attitude is the one you would adopt if you were suddenly thrown +into a society of apes---apes which perpetually preyed within their own +ecological niche. It is clear that if you proposed to be "against" such a +situation, and to do something about it, then politics as it is normally +conceived would be out of the question. To anticipate our later discussion, +the first thing you must do is to protect yourself against society. The way to +do this is to create an invisible enclave for yourself within the Establishment. +Having such an enclave certainly does not imply loyalty to the +Establishment. On the contrary, there is no reason why you should be toyal +to any faction among the apes. You only pretend to be loyal to one faction +or another when it is necessary for self-defense. If there is a change of regime +in the country where you are living, you either leave or join the winning side. +Transfer your invisible enclave to whatever Establishment is available. But all +this is an external, defensive tactic which has nothing to do with the primary +goals of our strategy. + +We will finish our critique of third-level politics, and then continue the +description of the substitute which we propose. In addition to making vague +promises of third-level change, leftism encourages indignation at social +conditions which are beyond anyone's power to affect. Leftism attributes +great ethical merit to such indignation and morally condemns anyone who +does not share it. But this attitude is totally irrational and dishonest. In +philosophy and mathematics, it is possible for a proposition to be valid even +though it has no chance of institutional acceptance. But in social, economic, +and political matters, attitudes which have policy implications are nonsense +unless the policies are actually implemented. Institutional acceptance is the +only arena of validation of a social doctrine. It is absurd to attribute ethical +merit to a longing for the impossible. Indignation at a social condition which +is beyond anyone's power to affect is meaningless. (Indeed, to the extent +that such indignation diverts social energy into a dead end, it is +"counter-revolutionary.") To be more radical in social matters than society +can possibly be is not virtuous; it is idiotic. + +Although third-level politics is a fraud, it is the contention of this essay +that there exists a rational substitute for it. Once you perceive that you exist +in a society of apes who attack their own ecological niche, there are rational +goals which you can adopt for your life that correspond to third-level change +even though they have nothing to do with leftism. The preliminary step, as +we have said, is to create an invisible enclave for yourself within. the +Establishment. The remainder of the strategy is in two parts which are in +fact closely related. + +The first part is based on a consideration of the effects which such +figures as Galileo, Galois, Abel, Lobachevski, and Mendel have had on +society. These men devoted themselves to researches which seemed to be +purely abstract, without any relevance to the practical world. Yet, through +long, tortuous chains of events, their researches have had disruptive effects +on society which go far beyond the effects of most political movements. The +reason has to do with the peculiar role which technology has in human +society. Society's attitude in relation to technology is like that of a child +who cannot refrain from playing with matches. We find that +the abstract researches of the men being considered accomplished a dual +result. On the one hand, they represented inner escape, the achievement of a +private utopia now. Of course, the general public will not understand this; +only the few who are capable of participating in such activities will +appreciate the extent to which they can constitute inner escape. On the +other hand, they have had profoundly disruptive effects on society, effects +which still have not run their course. + +Thus, the first part of our strategy is to follow the example of these +individuals. Of course, we do not stay within the bounds of present-day +academic research, any more than Galileo or Mendel did in their time. What +we have in mind is activities in the intellectual modality represented by the +rest of this book. + +It should be clear that such activities do represent a private utopia, and are at +the same time the seeds of disruptive future technologies which lead directly +to the second part of our strategy. + +It is important to realize that by speaking of inner escape we do not +mean fashionable drug use, or Eastern religions, or occultism. These +threadbare superstitions are embraced by the cosmopolitan middle +classes---intellectually spineless fools who are always grasping for spiritual +comfort. Superstitious fads are escapism in the worst sense, as they only +serve to further muddle the heads of the fools who embrace them. In +contrast, the inner escape which we propose is original and consequential, +leading to an increase in man's manipulative power over the world. It has +nothing to do with irrationality or superstition. + +The second part of our strategy is predicated on the following states of +affairs. First, it is the human species as such which is the obstacle to +third-level political change. Secondly, technology is developing far more +rapidly than society is, and no feature of the natural world need any longer +be taken for granted. Society cannot help but foster technology in the +pursuit of military and economic supremacy, and this includes technology +which can contribute to the making of artificial superhuman beings. Every +fundamental advance in logic, physics, neurophysiology, and +neurocybernetics obviously leads in this direction. Thus, the second part of +the strategy is to participate in the making of artificial superhumans, +possibly by infiltrating the military-scientific establishment and diverting +research in the appropriate direction. + +{ \itshape +Note: This essay provides a specific, practical strategy for the present +environment. It also shows that certain types of opposition to the status quo +are meaningless. Subversion Theory, on the other hand, was a general theory +which was not limited to any one environment, but also which failed to +provide a specific strategy for the present environment. \par } + + |