[Peace-discuss] War and peace again

[C. G. Estabrook]

Hostility to democracy has been commonplace in American politics, from 
the Founding Father's assertion that "those who own the country ought to 
govern it," to the open contempt for democracy shown by the Neocons. 
But such hostility is rarely asserted as an ideal, especially by those 
presumed to be opposed to war and racism. People are usually embarrassed 
about being opposed to democracy.

The central assertion of the Enlightenment was that freedom was an 
essential component of human nature.  "I have sworn upon the altar of 
God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of 
man," said Jefferson.  Some authority may be justified, of course -- I 
am right to assert my  authority over my four-year-old to prevent her 
running into the street.  But authority doesn't exist by right -- it 
needs to justify itself.

It is the task of democracy to establish justified authority.  For 
example, there are those in the community who act against the freedom of 
others, occasionally with violence, and they need to be stopped and 
stopped quickly, and violence may be necessary to do it.  A democracy 
will need a police force -- but it should be under democratic control.

But authoritarianism (unjustified authority) is a civic vice, while 
democracy is a virtue.  It's a perversion of Aristotelian moral theory 
to see political virtue as a mean between authoritarianism (a vice) and 
democracy (a virtue). (It also produces an infinite regress, sort of 
Hegel in reverse.)  Aristotle thought that virtue declined in two 
directions to vice, one of excess and the other of deficiency (e.g., 
courage is opposed to foolhardiness as well as to cowardice).  Thus 
civic virtue (social order) lies between the vices of excessive law 
(authoritarianism) and lawlessness (anarchy).

We do not say that political virtue is a balance between violence and 
peace.  Peace is the ideal, even though (justified) violence may 
sometimes be necessary for its attainment.  Democracy is the ideal, even 
though (justified) authority may be necessary for its attainment. 
(Hence the right of revolution.)

What Aristotle actually said about democracy was that it would 
necessarily be undermined and destroyed by authoritarianism in a 
situation of inequality.  Inequality and democracy are contradictory, 
Aristotle thought, so you had to restrict one or the other.  The US 
founding fathers, who were well educated in the classics, understood the 
problem -- and chose to limit democracy, not inequality.  Madison wrote 
that the Constitution was designed "to protect the minority of the 
opulent against the majority" -- i.e., it was set up to restrict the 
democratic impulses of Americans (e.g., Shays' Rebellion, 1786) so that 
the rich wouldn't be threatened with redistribution of their wealth.

The political spectrum does not run from authority to democracy, but 
from authoritarianism (on the Right) to democracy (on the Left). 
Anarchism -- a political theory to be sharply distinguished from the 
state of anarchy, although the distinction is often and purposely 
confused -- is at the far Left end.  Anarchism doesn't mean no rules, 
just no rulers.  An anarchist society -- a free association of 
workers/producers (which is what human beings are) -- would necessarily 
be a highly organized society.  There would have to be a good deal of 
democratic authority, but no authoritarianism.

Oscar Wilde once said, "Socialism is a good idea, but it would take too 
many evenings."  All anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists 
are anarchists.  The 20th century acquainted us with the phenomenon of 
authoritarian socialism -- right-wing socialism -- but affords few 
examples of the non-authoritarian sort.

Lenin of course recognized the phenomenon in his 1920 book "Left-Wing 
Communism -- An Infantile Disorder."  He was against it.  Authoritarians 
are opposed to democracy.

--CGE

illyes at uiuc.edu wrote:
> The problem with accepting a consistent usage of left and right, as
> Carl proposes, is that this is not a line but a circle. Pure
> democracy and authoritarianism are very close, not opposites. The
> first devolves reliably into the second. Pure democracy, I claim, is
> not a good idea.
> 
> There is an inherent conflict between self-interest and altruism that
> we all live every day. It is a part of what it is to be human. This
> conflict has to be a part of any valid political science, because
> political science must respect what it is to be human.
> 
> I can't give you an exact quote without spending half an hour digging
> through Bertrand Russell's writings, but this is pretty close: "When
> I was a young man, I found the idea of the golden mean boring. When I
> became older, I realized that the truth was not always interesting."
> 
> For those of you who do not know what this means, Aristotle
> proposed that moral behavior consists of avoiding extremes. In the
> case I bring up, this would mean that neither a society based on pure
> altruism nor pure self-interest is moral, but that something in the
> middle was. This is not a comfortable concept, but I think it is
> correct.
> 
> Bob _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss
> mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss