\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. \vfill { \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 }