The author's introduction to this story:
"Wars could not be fought were men psychologically unable to fight. An abolition of war, if such can be accomplished, will leave us with that potentiality of violence. How then shall we express it?" (p. 141)
Some regular blog readers might know that this issue has been an on-off bone of contention in post comboxes for quite a while. I certainly have no intention of plodding through that argument yet again. However, I am responding to Poul Anderson's text. I will say what I think although I might use an editorial "we" now and again.
The first sentence is undeniable. Men psychologically unable to fight would not be able to fight in wars. This ability to fight is a potentiality to fight or a possibility of fighting. However, we now reach an ambiguity. (I think.) The phrase "potentiality of violence" can mean either:
(i) we have the potential to respond violently to certain situations (the classic challenge to a pacifist: "What would you do if you saw an enemy soldier about to rape your sister?" etc);
- or:
(ii) there is in each and every one of us the potentiality suddenly to behave violently in any and every situation, even without any threat, provocation, deprivation etc.
I agree with (i) but not with (ii). But the question, "How then shall we express it?" seems to assume some version of (ii).
Wars happen not because large numbers of individuals in one country suddenly want to attack large numbers of individuals in another country but because, for historical, economic and political reasons, each country maintains armed forces and sometimes uses them. We can discuss how to organize countries differently. Social organization has already changed significantly several times throughout history and prehistory, after all.
Imagine:
a world federation of democratic republics;
each republic maintains at most an internal police force but not any bodies of armed men for attacking/defending against each other;
resources that would have gone into massive arms expenditure go instead into social infrastructure and into addressing common problems;
the republics trade, publish new scientific discoveries and cooperate economically and in maintaining the environment.
"...if such can be accomplished..." We can try to work towards it. Or we can say that the problem is insoluble.
I have yet to reread "License" and cannot remember what happens in it. But that can be another discussion.
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
To some degree we NEED that potentiality within us to be violent, because not all causes or occasions of violence will be unjustifiable. Humans will and should use violence to fight predators trying to kill and eat us. Humans will and should fight (admittedly, only when possible) if other humans attack them. If we lacked that potentiality for violence could the human race survive at all? I strongly doubt it!
No, a viable world federation has to include making some room for the beliefs of member states. And that includes member states with political forms you don't like, such as the Kingdom of Norway insisting on being a monarchy. What matters as always is legitimacy, which boils down in this case to what the people of a member state want as their kind of gov't. A doctrinaire insistence on one size fits all political schemes is more likely than not to provoke opposition and resistance.
Plus, any World Federation or United Commonwealths will need to have a monopoly of the means of violence if wars are to be avoided. Member states would be limited to having police forces sufficient for controlling crime and peace keeping, plus reservists that the central federal gov't would call up as and when needed.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Not a doctrinaire insistence. A federation would have to accept into membership a constitutional monarchy if its citizens voted to retain it. If peaceful relations between countries became stabilized, then the monopoly of violence would become increasingly unnecessary.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly, for example, the French might become so disgusted with republics they demand a restoration of the monarchy. Their wishes would be what matters.
No, if peaceful relations between the member states of a world federation are to continue, the central will continue to need that monopoly of the means of violence. Otherwise the mice will play if the cat sleeps too long.
Hard, real history has shown over and over that weakness by the State, any State, breeds chaos and violence. Just look at France right now! Pres. Macron has shown himself to be dismayingly feeble and ineffectual.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not advocate a weak state.
No. You do not understand that relationships, attitudes and institutions change with changing conditions. We are not mice who play while the cat is asleep. People are much more than that.
Paul.
Condition: Colour TV's are rare and expensive. I have the opportunity to steal one. I am tempted.
Condition: Colour TV's are cheap and sold in every town and everyone has one in every room if they want them. But I am still tempted to break into my neighbour's house, mug him and steal one of his TV's?
We are EQUALLY inclined to violence in ANY conditions?
What applies to individuals applies equally to countries. Conditions have changed and can change more.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't care about trivia like televisions. The looting and plundering going on in France is only one of the results of a State not enforcing law and order. The real problem is that alliance of radical leftists and fanatical Muslims deliberately provoking chaos so that if Marine Le Pen wins the presidential election next year the ground will be prepared for even more chaos. The end goal being a seizure of power. Next comes factional battles over which of them ends up on top.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The televisions were an example of where changing conditions removes a motive for theft and violence! We should all care about that.
I said nothing about current conditions in France. Needless to say, I have a different perspective on that but I hardly think that we need to start a discussion of it here. Think about pupils protesting about deteriorating school facilities and being attacked by riot police with truncheons and tear gas. Many of those who support the pupils want improvements to schools, not more chaos and "...a seizure of power." But, like I say, that was not what I was talking about. People like us, without needing any genetic engineering (this has been brought up before), behave very differently in very different conditions. My only point at present.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, the chaos in France might have started with relatively minor complaints about schools, but events there have become far more than that. Radicals and fanatics seizing on any excuse to sow more chaos.
Seriously? Truncheons and tear gas are harsh measures? If the chaos in France gets much worse only a Napoleonic "whiff of grapeshot" will be able to restore order.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The deterioration of French schools is not a relatively minor complaint. Of course truncheons and tear gas against school pupils are harsh measures. Of course I am serious. "Radicals and fanatics seizing on any excuse to sow more chaos" is a cliche. When protests are followed by violence, the attempt is always made to turn that violence into the only issue. The real issue is the failure of the French economy to support its educational system.
But we have gone completely off the point that was under discussion.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, it's no longer about schools and alleged students. Many, many of the rioters, looters, arsonists, etc., are nothing like that. It's not a cliche, those radicals and fanatics using any excuse to sow chaos, it's the sober truth. And the real issue is how these troubles were brought on/worsened by the failed anti-Western policies of the past 60 years or more.
Violence and chaos can only be tolerated so far before the French gov't will have no choice but to use open force to restore order. The first and prime duty of the State, any State, is to keep the peace.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Can't we get back to the original point? (Which was not France.)
Yes, it is about the failure of the existing economic system to maintain its support of education and other social necessities. Different social groups support each other. Members of social minorities supporting students are not "alleged students." Yes, it is a cliche, not the sober truth.
If society does not move forward, using its resources to make better provision for all its citizens, then it will periodically revert to violence and chaos. Merely maintaining the grossly inadequate status quo by force is not a viable option.
How did we get onto this? How can we get back off it?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It started as a discussion of the legitimacy of a World Federation a la that of the one seen in THE STAR FOX having member states with different forms of gov't. And then branched out to France when I recalled the chaos going on there.
I still disagree, my view remains that outside groups of radicals/fanatics seized on "education" merely as a means of sowing more chaos.
Of course, we are going to continue periodically reverting to violence and chaos, because IWHBD when struggling for power. Esp. when the State, whatever it might be at a particular time, weakly refuses to enforce peace.
Why should "...we get back off it?" Anderson's stories and stated beliefs invites these discussions. That doesn't bother me!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I showed how I would be tempted to steal in one set of conditions but not in another set of conditions. I did not want to talk about France which of course is going to be and remain an irresoluble wrangle.
Of course you still disagree. We have to get rid of this apparent expectation that exchanges of this sort are going to result in either of us agreeing with the other!
"Radicals/fanatics seizing on (whatever the issue is) is merely as a means of sowing more chaos" is a smear that is always used. It is merely a statement of prejudice. You think it and will continue to think it because it is not based on evidence in the first place. The radicals that I know, read and agree with are not fanatics. That equation is simply untrue.
I meant "get back off" France specifically which was not on my agenda.
We do not have to revert to violence and chaos periodically. This present economic system does so revert because it continually threatens living standards, social conditions and now even the environment. While we can make gains (higher wages and pensions, better health and education services etc) within the present system, then we will do so. When this is no longer possible because the system is in crisis and decline, as now, then the system will have to be replaced by something better. This desire for something better IWHBD and is not remotely the same thing as a new clique trying to oust an old clique from power. Power is the ability to coerce and I really do not want to repeat my arguments that we can build a society in which there no longer are or have to be any means of coercion. (But it is easy to keep repeating the word "power.")
(I don't think this is getting us anywhere.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I have never insisted we are going to come to an agreement on controverted matters. Only stating where I disagree with you.
It's not a smear, what I said about radicals and fanatics making alliances of convenience. Nor do I share this obsession about "economics," when the real issue is how certain factions crave power and are willing to do whatever it takes to get it. Remember how Stirling said there is never going to be enough power to satisfy everyone who wants it. Nor do I believe it is possible to have "ideal" societies.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You keep stating that you disagree as if you thought that I expected you to agree. It is absolutely clear by now that that is definitely never going to happen.
There are no "obsessions." That is unnecessary language. "Economics" in quote marks? It is how we live. How we produce and distribute what we need is the most basic issue on which everything else is built. The real issue is not how certain factions crave power (I keep replying about that word) and are willing to do whatever it takes to get it. That sounds like an accusation against people who advocate different policies. There is never going to be enough power for everyone who wants it? Who wants it? I don't. I am talking about how we can have a better society. It doesn't have to be "ideal." Mankind is capable of doing far better than it is at present. In fact, we are now destroying ourselves.
Paul.
Post a Comment