|
Steven Den Beste gives as his opinion that there shouldn't be a world government. I'd agree. The question is: what are we going to do about it? As my readers will know, I'm basically a Machiavellian, with some acquaintance with other historical and political pundits and philosophers. Machiavelli himself was a pundit, not a philosopher; he didn't appeal to any overarching ideology in identifying himself as a republican, and The Prince and The Discourses were not informed by such; rather, they were meant to be (Machiavelli is guilty of idealization and fantasizing in each) historical surveys ("historical" in the sense that everything that has already happened, if even it was only yesterday, is "history") saying, "This and that was done in the past; this worked and that didn't; I don't know why and don't much care". There are some traces of an ideology in his cyclical theory of politics and history (adapted from Aristotle) and in his insistence that republican and individual virtù were a potent driving force in history (although not the only such), but Machiavelli never put these together into an explicit philosophy. I'll now bring up Spengler and contrast him, as best I can, with Machiavelli (as I've indicated before, I have a limited acquaintance with Spengler). Spengler also believed in a cyclical theory of history, although much grander in scope and with different emphases and conclusions than Machiavelli did. Spengler believed that every culture and civilization (to him, these were specialized, and largely antithetical, technical terms; I shall use them synonymously, however) grew, blossomed, and died; the specific deeds and accomplishments might differ, especially as they might be influenced by previous civilizations (Spengler identified Islam as a religio-cultural phase in a "Magian" civilization going back to Constantine the Great), but the pattern, and even the time spans involved in each phase, were similar in every civilization allowed it full growth. Once a civilization was dead, it was dead; there was no resurrection, although that might be obscured by the overlap of civilizations in space and time (the "Magian" civilization's early centuries were obscured by its apparent continuity with late Classical civilization, and Western civilization -- albeit after a lapse of several centuries -- also grew up in space that had partially been occupied by Classical civilization). This viewpoint, incidentally, may explain much about the current conflict between Islam and the West. To Spengler (and we should remember that he was writing nearly a century ago), "Magian" civilization -- the final achievement of which was the Ottoman Empire -- was in its final death throes, about to collapse back into formless barbarism. Western civilization, by contrast, although its creativity was nearly exhausted, was still capable of -- and would achieve, in his view -- impressive accomplishments in scientific and artistic criticism and in political consolidation. It was, in fact, transiting from his "Autumn" phase of culture to his "Winter" (or "civilization") phase, in which the great creative accomplishments of its past, although not to be truly extended, were to be given their final forms. One of those forms, the consolidation of Western political forms, would be the Universal Empire. We should note that the Universal Empire will not, in its early phases, necessarily resemble superficially the empires of the past. There need not be an Emperor; the Universal Empire may not nominally be politically united. Nonetheless, the Empire will dance to the tune of a ever more centralized and isolated bureaucracy. It will not necessarily be a strictly American bureaucracy in its early stages (in its later stages, of course, it will be a Universal Imperial bureaucracy), although the smart money is that Americans will provide the seeds of that bureaucracy. So, I'm predicting (well, based on my knowledge of what Spengler predicted) the Universal Empire in -- say about half a century, plus or minus thirty years. Many, perhaps a majority, of my readers are going to see it. I don't say they will like it; I don't say that I will like it. I'm saying that it's going to happen, whether we like it or not. Except...turning away from Spengler to Machiavelli again. Machiavelli believed in a cyclical theory of history; he might even have bought into Spengler's (once he had admitted that it took his beloved Italy and his idolized Roman Republic out of the running for good). But whilst Machiavelli believed in nameless, perhaps Divine, historical forces -- fortuna -- , he also believed that a man of sufficient virtù (not the same thing as republican virtù, of course) could bend fortuna to his will, and short-circuit the historical cycle. In a metaphor, he notes that although we cannot prevent a river from flooding, we can still control its course with dams and dikes (a metaphor made more poignant, although perhaps less convincing, by the fact that he really didn't believe that men could control nature; Machiavelli is a frank imperialist, because he believes that imperialism represents the only realistically tough but overcomable challenge). Where is the man -- or the movement -- of sufficient virtù to short-circuit the Spenglerian cycles, and prevent the future that den Beste and I -- and, I expect you, Gentle Reader -- so dislike. John "Akatsukami" Braue Thursday, May 16, 2002 |
|