Unfortunately, political philosophers rarely
seem to understand war as an institution. Rather, it is looked upon as an
accident, at best a derivative of other state interests. The state, after all,
in classical theory, is the opposite of war – the essential curb on it. Thus it
seems dialectically out of the question that war might become part of the
state, colonize the state’s DNA, as it were, determine its political form (a
possibility materialized in the way a state taxes and distributes money, in the
way a governing elite gets its hands on the state, in the very culture of
belligerence that the busy little state spreads among a population).It is as
if, among possible state forms, one is missing. Democracy, monarchy, oligarchy,
anarchy – all of them are there except for… bellarchy.
Bellarchy, in premodern times, impressed itself on the core of the state in terms of conquest, plunder, and glory, and these things have featured from the Assyrians to the colonizing West – but the idea of modernization is that we have left this in the past, These things are seem alien to the state in any of its modern guises.
Bellarchy, in premodern times, impressed itself on the core of the state in terms of conquest, plunder, and glory, and these things have featured from the Assyrians to the colonizing West – but the idea of modernization is that we have left this in the past, These things are seem alien to the state in any of its modern guises.
But I say nay, look around you.
In modern times, it was Hitler who codified
the arms race and perpetual readiness for war into the state’s answer to the
numerous problems posed by the treadmill of production. After World War II,
this was Hitler’s legacy to the two great superpowers, the U.S. and the
U.S.S.R. So, for instance, the U.S. was able, in the Cold war, to do what it
had been unable to do for almost one hundred years – develop the South, using
the military to distribute aid to that underdeveloped part of the country, just
as it also did to the West. And that structure has had cultural effects we have
seen to this day. A constituency for war has been created such that war
unleashes, without any questioning, the massive resources of the state.
If Thomas Paine, whose instinct about war was sound, never quite foresaw this system, he certainly knew of and derided the connection between war and monarchy – or, if you will, the executive branch. Here he is still very much the prophet – meaning that his words are still not taken seriously. Only when prophecy is safely defunct is the prophet honored. Thomas Paine, like MLK, remains a prophet.
If Thomas Paine, whose instinct about war was sound, never quite foresaw this system, he certainly knew of and derided the connection between war and monarchy – or, if you will, the executive branch. Here he is still very much the prophet – meaning that his words are still not taken seriously. Only when prophecy is safely defunct is the prophet honored. Thomas Paine, like MLK, remains a prophet.
No comments:
Post a Comment