Great philosophical quotes updated

This week, Karl Marx;

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Today’s version;

“From each according to his ability to obtain cheap pre-recession credit, to each according to his need for a flat screen TV”

Carpe Something-Or-Other

The only time that is possible by mere physics is the present moment.

Enjoy it.

Oops! too late.  it’s gone.

Wait, here’s another . . .

uh oh . . .

gone as well.

What do you say we stop talking about it and just go ahead and grab and LIVE the moment the next time it comes around?

Get ready now.

Here it comes!

Two Philosophers in a Bar

Friedrich Nietzche and Immanuel Kant were sitting in a bar getting totally plastered.  A gorgeous redhead walks in and the two watch as she walks slowly past their table.  They continue to sit and drink in silence for a long moment when Kant says to Nietzche,

“Doesn’t your genealogical account of the development of Master-Slave morality ever bother you?”

To which Nietzche replied, “Not since I heard you say that people should only act a certain way when and if they can at the same time will that everybody else do the same thing.”

Really?  I almost busted a gut the first time I heard it.

I guess you had to be there . . .

Weak Strong States

This is the third in the series on the theoretical and analytical work by Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man.[1]

The first two of the series can be found here.

• The End of History and the Last Man
• Pessimism of the West

In the second installment, we discussed how liberal democracies and the political scientists that inhabit them have failed to see the rising tide of liberal democracy around the world.  We examined the reasons for this pessimism based on the failures in the middle of the 20^th century as witnessed in Nazism and Stalinism, and the seeming permanence of Soviet Communism after the fall of Stalinism and during the Cold War period.

G.W.F. Hegel

Liberal democracy was supposed to bring about the final installment of political enlightenment and herald a new and ultimate Age of Man. Inherent contradictions aside, it was supposed to put to an end the horrors of government during the millennia leading up to the establishment of the groundling democracies formed in the late 18^th century in France and the United States.

France and the United States were by no means the most liberal or democratic states that they could be at the time of their respective revolutions.  France suffered under a dictatorship for a brief period that gave rise to Napoleon’s “Empire.”  The United States still enslaved and disenfranchised substantial percentage of its population.  The point is that the dam had burst and it was felt that there would be now no going back.

Hegel was the first to propose that political socialization was a result of a “dialectical” process with each preceding form competing with present reality to form a “synthesis.”  Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.  New and better forms of political socialization evolved to a point where the evolution becomes complete.  To Hegel this completion found its form in liberal democracy, and therefore the “End of History.”  Hegel has been criticized for giving justification for the authoritarian regimes (particularly Nazism) in the 20^th century, but this criticism is faulty.

Karl Marx, took a page from Hegel in the use of his dialectical model and formed the basis for “Dialectical Materialism” and arrived at the conclusion that the End of History was not liberal Democracy but Communism.  Their methods were the same but the conclusions were radically different.

The failures of communism are well recorded and need not be discussed in great detail here.  The successes of liberal democracy not only continued but are spreading ever wider.  It will be the future current successes on which we will concentrate.  Before we can do that however, we must first briefly examine why liberal democracy is the form that has held on and continues to expand and why theories of “Strong” states ultimately fail.  That can be done with an examination of what Fukuyama calls the Weak Strong State.[2]

Let’s begin by defining our terms.  What do we mean by a “strong” state?  What is meant when we speak of “weak” states?

A strong state is one who, by definition, is able to control its political organization and permanence through strict control of the political system.  A strong state tells the people unequivocally who the political are and will be without leaving a choice for leaders to be replaced by a democratic process.  A tool to accomplish this is by strict restriction of liberal policies or rights-rights such as speech, association, and privacy.  All this, again by definition, makes the political structure of such states “illiberal” and “undemocratic.”

The trade-off for the loss of democratic and liberal rights is security.  The people give up these things (theoretically) in exchange for social and economic stability.  It pays here to mention that besides personal liberalness that we can also speak of “economic” liberality where the contrast is between an economy that is allowed to grow and flourish (with some restrictions) on the one hand and an economy that is rigidly controlled and restricted by the state political apparatus on the other.

The “weak” state, on the other hand, is the liberal-democratic state.  It is perceived as weak because the political structure is seen as unstable.  Social and economic security is not as certain as in the strong state because the political environment is not as tightly controlled.  Personal liberties are unrestricted which gives possible rise to uncontrolled outbursts of public sentiment over public dissatisfaction.  Leaders and parties can be changed through the democratic process.  Economic liberalism gives rise to class inequalities and poverty, because of the inequities of capitalism.

The liberal-democratic state though is not weak.  It is strong for the very reasons that it is presupposed to be weak.  It is the very liberal/democratic nature of the political and social process that gives the state the ultimate legitimacy upon which it rests its authority.  It is a state that respects the rights of its population and allows the people, not the government, to decide what should be done when difficulties arise.

Strength or viability therefore rests on the legitimacy of the regime.  Legitimacy is the degree of faith that is placed in the state.  All states, liberal-democratic or otherwise must have some measure of legitimacy to begin with in order to last any length of time.  The greater the degree, the greater the viability.

A strict authoritarian state such as Nazi Germany held a certain degree of legitimacy or else it would not have been

able to rise to the power that it held at its zenith.  No ruler, not even Adolph Hitler can rule solely by force over an entire nation of people.  He needed supporters who believed that he was the best possible choice for running the country and therefore gave their allegiance to him.  It was in his counselors and generals therefore that Hitler and therefore Nazism found legitimacy.  This elite supporting group therefore were available to carry out his commands through their subordinates who similarly gave legitimacy to their leaders.  It was an authoritarian (and very nearly totalitarian) state.  Liberal rights were severely curtailed and of course there was no democratic action.

Nazism, fortunately, was proved illegitimate through force of arms.  A great many horrors were committed before it was brought down and it is equally certain that a great many more would have occurred had it not been defeated militarily.  But, even if it had survived, it could not have endured.  It’s ideology rested on the idea of the superiority of race and the racial right to rule.  To remain legitimate it would have had to constantly been in armed international conflict.  If it had won, then its reason for being would have been eliminated and it would have either collapsed completely or the form of government would have had to violently change.  Violently, because in a system of authoritarian repression, any conflicting ideal would have to be brutally put down.

Soviet communism is a different matter and its persistence, among other things, gave justification for the western pessimism mentioned earlier in this essay and in the second in the series, “Pessimism of the West.”

Authoritarianism differs from Totalitarianism in one crucial respect.  Authoritarianism controls the political/social culture but mainly the political structure.  Authoritarianism allows some social structures to remain either unchanged or with restrictions.  Totalitarianism controls all spheres of life, both political and social.  Therefore, an authoritarian government may allow religious practice even if it is only the state approved religion.  Totalitarian government abolishes ALL religion.  Religion becomes the worship of the state itself.  Authoritarian government may allow state censored press and other media.  Totalitarian government owns and operates the media.  There is no need for censorship because all you are going to absorb from the media is strictly what the government puts out for consumption.  Totalitarianism is 100% all-encompassing.

Animal Farm was about an authoritarian government.  1984 was about totalitarianism.  When an authoritarian government finally loses its legitimacy it is more likely to ease its way into liberal-democracy because there are structures already in place to ease the transition.  When totalitarianism collapses it is more like to collapse completely because there is nothing ready-made on which to form a consensus of acceptable social interaction.  When the state goes, so does everything the state represented.

This therefore is a good explanation of why supposedly strong states are in fact weak and why the truly states of liberal-democracies are not only the best representations of what has become the End of History and why they are sure to endure.  Next in the series will be discussed what Fukuyama calls the “Worldwide Liberal Revolution.”

C.E. Spots

---

[1] Frances Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992).  Second paperback edition.

[2] ibid.  13-38

Two Philosophers

Friedrich Nietzche and Immanuel Kant were sitting in a bar getting totally plastered.  A gorgeous redhead walks in and the two watch as she walks slowly past their table.  They continue to sit and drink in silence for a long moment when Kant says to Nietzche,

“Doesn’t your genealogical account of the development of Master-Slave morality ever bother you?”

To which Nietzche replied, “Not since I heard you say that people should only act a certain way when and if they can at the same time will that everybody else do the same thing.”

Really?  I almost busted a gut the first time I heard it.

I guess you had to be there . . .

The Power Elite

C. Wright Mills

The Elite Theory is a theory in political philosophy which seeks to explain power relationships in political and cultural society.  It postulates that there is a small group of individuals who are considered the “Elite” who determine the rules and norms by which society is governed.  No matter what happens in elections these “elite” will always retain most of and the most important share of power within the society.

Through membership on boards of corporations, banks, and insurance companies, individuals cooperate in formal and informal networks to profoundly affect policy on all levels including national leadership.  Financial support of Think Tanks, policy discussion groups, professional and government commissions, provide a channel for the elite to exercise and maintain their power.

The theory stands in opposition to Pluralism which theorizes that power is held by many self-interest groups competing for a greater share of government attention and support by supporting elected officials either monetarily or through information and physical (including “grassroots”) support.  In Pluralism no one group holds enough power to affect policy completely, but it is shared among the many groups.

C. Wright Mills was perhaps the first of the modern Power Elite theorists.  He laid the foundations and gave the definitions on which most of modern theory of the subject is based.  In 1956 (within my lifetime), he wrote the classic text on the subject, The Power Elite.  His theory concentrated on power elitism in the United States and identified three distinct and separate power groups.

• The Political Sphere
• The Military, and
• The Economic Sphere.

They may not necessarily, but certainly are subject to suspicion of, joint collaboration.  Possession of power by any one of these groups and especially when in joint concert are susceptible to vast corruption.  When economic power elites control  outcomes in the electoral process, then non-economic non-power groups lose a say in leadership at all levels of government.  When Dow Chemical (for example) gets a candidate elected president then Dow Chemical will get preference in government policy decisions.

The overall effect is to reduce the idea of democratic government to a sham.

Do you believe that the United States is governed by a Power Elite?

Are we a Pluralist nation?

What are your thoughts?

c.e.s.

Pessimism of the West

Pessimism of the West

This is the second in the series of essays, reviews and commentaries on The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama.[1]

• The End of History and the Last Man

In the first of the series we discussed the premise that the end of history is being demonstrated by the wide spread acceptance of Liberal Democracy as the government of choice around the world.  We discussed the concept that what is meant by the “end of history” is not the end of events or even great and significant moments in world politics.  It is merely a statement that the events of history up until now have led to this point that we have finally reached and are accepting an ideal and universal form of world government.  Before we can go any further we must address the history of the alternatives to Liberal Democracy and why it has not been more widely accepted that this is the inevitable form of the ideal Social Contract.

Fukuyama calls this non-acceptance of the goodness and inevitable triumph of Liberal Democracy “Our Pessimism.[2] In the west we have been pessimistic about achieving a final form of universally acceptable government because of the witness of the past 100 years.  The horrors of World War I, the bloody scourges of Stalinism, the death camps of Hitler, “total war” encompassing the wholesale destruction of civilian populations and resources-all these things disproved what was believed earlier that the progress and civilization of man would remove from our history the barbarities of our ancestors.  Indeed, it was these very progresses that enabled evil to find more ultimate ways to express itself.

Liberal Democracy was confronted by two challengers to the “preferred” method of government-Communism and Fascism.  Fascism, under the Nazis, was defeated by force of arms.  Soviet Communism continued and became the main challenger to the Liberal ideal.  In our own times, it became widely accepted that the Soviet regime was not only here to stay, but that it was even an acceptable alternative.  It appeared to have legitimacy for the Soviet people.  They were apparently willing to trade liberal democratic practices for the security promised by the Soviet state.  But it was not legitimate as was quickly proved when the Soviet Union disintegrated in the late 1980s-early 90s.

The collapse came as a total surprise to the west.  Secretary of State Henry Kissinger as late as the 1970s expressed the views of most western political scientists when he said,

. . . today, for the first time in our history, we face the stark reality that the communist challenge is unending . . . We must learn to conduct foreign policy as other nations have had to conduct it for so many centuries-without escape and without respite. . . . This condition will not go away.

Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who later served on the National Security Council and was the first female U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, wrote a famous article in 1979 comparing right-wing Authoritarian governments to left-wing (communist) Totalitarian governments.  She provided that authoritarian governments  were susceptible to democracy and liberalization but there was no provision given for change on the left.  Totalitarian regimes (in contrast to authoritarian) controlled their populaces so ruthlessly by expropriating every form of social intercourse including previously internalized values and traditions, that they were therefore rendered virtually immune reform.

The history of this century provide no grounds for expecting that radical totalitarian regimes will transform themselves.

All of our best and brightest were proved incredibly wrong when it finally happened.

Liberalism and Democracy are not necessary partners.  A country can be liberal without being democratic, and it can be democratic without being liberal, but because of our pessimism it was felt for a long time that we would not see both coming together in countries currently under the sway of the left or the right.  Our world would be evil upon evil without end, amen.  The horrors of the twentieth century destroyed our belief in the inexorable goodness of men and our rational western philosophies left us incapable of defending any other view.

But, as stated, we were wrong.  And we were wrong for a variety of reasons but the most important one is that other forms of government besides Liberal Democracy are confronted by inherent contradictions that sooner or later erode the legitimacy which is necessary to constitute a civil society of whatever stripe.

Please note that this is not to say that there are no contradictions in the theory and/or practice of liberal democracy or economy.  There are more than a few.  What this IS to say is that in a Liberal Democracy there are institutional remedies through both the liberal and the democratic processes with which these contradictions are addressed.  The ability to correct contradictions  therefore leaves intact the legitimacy of the government which it needs to exist and operate.

Liberal Democratic states are visibly weak, but are inherently strong in this respect.  Next we will examine the forms of government that are visibly strong, but suffer invisible inherent weakness.

---

[1] Frances Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992).  Second paperback edition.

[2] Ibid. 3

The End of History and the Last Man

The End of History and the Last Man

This will begin a series of essays and commentaries on The End of History and the Last Man[1] by noted political scientist Francis Fukuyama.  Continuance of the series will depend on popularity of them in this blog.  Popularity will be judged on post views and comments left.  No small percentage will be given to comments given.  It is my hope that this will stimulate interest in the subject and conversation on what has been presented here.  Footnotes are provided for appropriate citation and may be followed by clicking on the footnote number within the text.  This first post will be by way of introduction to the topic and the man.

 Francis Fukuyama is a Bernard L. Schwartz professor of international political economy at John Hopkins University and is a member of the President’s Council for Bioethics.  He has twice served on the Policy Planning Staff of the U.S. Department of State.  In 1981-82 he was a member of the U.S. delegation to the Egyptian-Israeli talks on Palestinian autonomy.  It is also noteworthy and will be mentioned later, that he was a student of political scientist Samuel P. Huntington.

In The End of History, Fukuyama argues that the evolution of political ideology has come to an end with the widespread acceptance of Liberal Democracy.  He notes with importance that a shared definition of “history” is prerequisite to the most basic understanding of his thesis.  The end of history is not the end of time, nor is it the end to events of greater and/or lesser political importance.

Rather, he argues that “liberal democracy constitutes the endpoint of mankind’s ideological evolution and the final form of human government, and as such constitutes the end of history[2].”

Hegel and Marx both viewed history in a similar light and posited that there would come a point in which mankind’s longings for political satisfaction would be met.  For Marx it was the communist state.  For Hegel it was the liberal democratic state.  We may relapse into authoritarian forms of government but the inexorable trend toward liberal democracy is just that, inexorable and will eventually ideologically overwhelm all other philosophies of government.  The reasons he gives for this advance are dependent on two variables;

• Economics, and
• The ’struggle for recognition.”

We. In the west, have become extremely pessimistic about the possibilities presented by this belief.  Our pessimism is based on the horrors and atrocities we witnessed in the 20^th century.  And no less, perhaps, by the upsurge in international terrorism most poignantly demonstrated in the September 11^th attacks on the World Trade Center in NYC and the Pentagon in Washington D.C.  However the lessons we should have taken from these tragic events is that, fundamentally there are glaring contradictions and weaknesses in seemingly strong dictatorship, be they of the Left or the Right.

Much commentary and criticism comes from Fukuyama’s acquaintaincship with Samuel Huntington, in light of Huntington’s own work, The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of the world Order.  Huntington speaks of a much different theory that Fukuyama presents.  Huntington postulates that far from being the end of history, what we see emerging in the political world order is conflicting cultures and ideologies clashing along geographic “fault lines.”

In the following essays here in the Aerie, we will concentrate on Fukuyama’s end of history hypothesis, that liberal democracy is not only here to stay, but that it encapsulates the pinnacle of human desire for government.

c.e.s.

The two links here for Samuel Huntington will take you to two separate locations.

---

[1] Frances Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992).  Second paperback edition.

[2] Ibid.  xi

What Hubris!

(Commentary on The Use and Abuse of History)

What amazing hubris it is for humanity to claim that just because we have the power to destroy all other creatures including ourselves and the planet upon which we live that this makes us the most supreme accomplishment of nature. As Nietzsche was quoted in the post immediately preceding this one, proud humans say “we are at the completion of nature!”

Rubbish!

I do not doubt evolution.  I do not doubt (as Nietzsche states) that we find traces or the beginnings of ourselves in “the utter depths of the sea, in the living slime.”  That this should be used to celebrate that we are the pinnacle of all that there will ever be is not only illogical, but arrogance in the extreme.

That we have acknowledged evolution, it is logical to assume that it is an ongoing process.  What evidence is there to now conclude that it is now at an end at the least for humanity?  There is none.  We cannot assume (even if we were to believe) that we are the best or most advanced of all that will ever be.  I am no anthropologist, but didn’t Cro Magnon and Neanderthal eventually become extinct (supplanted)?  Homo Erectus in the form of what we derisively call “Cave Man” must have thought that they, too, were the ”best of the best.”

Fooled them didn’t we?

How long will it be before we too are fooled?  That is, if in our still primitive war-like animal natures, we don’t end up destroying our capacity to adapt and survive.

Now let’s leave that argument aside.  We still have the question of what is “nature?”  Science continues to question the essence of nature.  It hasn’t been that long since we discovered that perhaps Newtonian physics isn’t the end-all-be-all.  Until another paradigm is discovered we call anything that is not understood as being in nature as being in sub, super, or paranature (paranormal).  When new knowledge is discovered to rationally explain these things, then we can label them “natural.”

Just as evolution has not stopped to please the hubris of man, neither has the march of science.

Just because we cannot explain paranatural events does not mean they are not true.  (This by the way is an argument for the possible existence of God.)

Just a thought.

Just for what it’s worth . . . 

c.e.s

The historical imagination has never flown so far, even in a dream; for now the history of man is merely the continuation of that of animals and plants; the universal historian finds traces of himself even in the utter depths of the sea, in the living slime  He stands astounded in the face of the enormous way that man has run, and his gaze quivers before the mightier wonder, the modern man who can see all the way!  He stands proudly on the pyramid of the world-process; and while he lays the final stone of his knowledge, he seems to cry aloud to listening Nature: “We are at the top, we are at the top; we are at the completion of Nature!”

Nietzsche, The Use and Abuse of History

The Use and Abuse of History

The historical imagination has never flown so far, even in a dream; for now the history of man is merely the continuation of that of animals and plants; the universal historian finds traces of himself even in the utter depths of the sea, in the living slime  He stands astounded in the face of the enormous way that man has run, and his gaze quivers before the mighter wonder, the modern man who can see all the way!  He stands proudly on the pyramid of the world-process; and while he lays the final stone of his knowledge, he seems to cry aloud to listening Nature: “We are at the top, we are at the top; we are at the completition of Nature!”

Nietzche, The Use and Abuse of History

( commentary to follow.  c.e.s. )