From 1fd7d5bdb37d7167adaeab2dc40a4abff6c6e2cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: grr <grr@lo2.org>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 21:34:54 -0400
Subject: breakout 'social philosophy' essays

---
 essays/three_levels_of_politics.tex | 214 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 214 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 essays/three_levels_of_politics.tex

(limited to 'essays/three_levels_of_politics.tex')

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 }
+
+
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

