Chapter 6: ATTITUDE OF MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY TO WAR.
In the previous chapter, Tolstoy set up the contradictions of modern life with the institutions that are outdated in modern society. Tolstoy sets up how we can get out of those contradictions.
The removal of the contradiction between life and consciousness is possible in two ways, — by a change of life or by a change of consciousness, and in the choice of one of the two there can be no doubt.
Two diametrically opposed sources have collided together, and that is the collision of our life and our morality, and one of them must change or we are trapped in the suicidal self-destruction of the previous chapter. Either our consciousness must be dulled or we must move backward morally (which seems impossible to Tolstoy) or we must change the way we live and remove the institutions that dictate the way we live.
if there did not exist the law of inertia, which is as invariable in the lives of men and nations as in inanimate bodies,
Historical laws operate on humanity and the institutions of humanity, which is why "things cannot be otherwise". This is why humanity must make a choice to dull their consciousnesses or change their lives. Moral consciousness has developed past the point of no return and humanity cannot look back and attach themselves to their institutions, though some will try. The ones who latch onto the institutions that are rejected by our moral consciousness do so because they benefit from the current arrangement of the institutions or cannot imagine how life would be if the institutions were removed or radically changed.
Slavery was contrary to all the moral principles which were preached by Plato and Aristotle, and yet neither the one nor the other saw this, because the negation of slavery destroyed all that life which they lived. The same happens in our world. The division of men into two castes, like the violence of the state and of the army, is repugnant to all those moral principles by which our world lives, and at the same time the leading men of culture of our time do not seem to see it.
Again, Plato and Aristotle's blind spots are brought up, but this time they are done to equate them with the thinkers and rulers of Tolstoy's day, with their defense of the slavery of our time. This obvious and seemingly intentional overlooking of the institutions that go against our moral consciousness is exasperated by the lack of clear and revolutionary art and language.
All literature, the philosophic, the political, and that of the belles-lettres, of our time is striking in this respect. What a wealth of ideas, forms, colours, what erudition, elegance, abundance of thoughts, and what total absence of serious contents, and even what fear of every definite-ness of thought and of its expression! Circumlocutions, allegories, jests, general, extremely broad reflections, and nothing simple, clear, pertinent to the matter, that is, to the question of life. But it is not enough that they write and say graceful vapidities; they even write and say abominable, vile things, they in the most refined manner adduce reflections which take men back to primeval savagery, to the foundations, not only of pagan, but even of animal life, which we out lived as far back as five thousand years ago.
Much like Orwell's critiques of the imprecise language in political writing, Tolstoy attacks the way (though he has optimism towards the idea of a free press, perhaps due to Russia not having one) those who write about important ideas do so without seriousness or clearness. For Tolstoy, sincerity is the highest virtue (complaining about jests and sarcasm seems a little hypocritical though, as Tolstoy uses these tools to ridicule) in both art and political art. Simplicity (though especially in this Wiener translation, much of his political work is rather complicated and can be difficult to understand, which is why this breakdown can be considered necessary) and directness, without irony that fogs the lenses of the reader, allows us to see the problems of our day and how they mesh against our moral consciousness. Political and religious writings should not focus on the institutions and the people inside the institutions, but should instead focus on the question of life. By asking the basic questions of life, what makes people happy, why we are here, and how we can have purpose in this universe that is filled with so much suffering, we can further our moral consciousness and evaluate our institutions from a more withdrawn state, one that is less self-centered and focused on how we benefit from institutions, allowing us to avoid the moral blind-spots of those like Plato and Aristotle.
In nothing may this direction of the activity of the leading men of our time be seen so clearly as in their relation to the phenomenon in which in our time the whole inadequacy of the social concept of life has been expressed in a concentrated form, — in their relation to war, to universal armaments, and to universal military service. The indefiniteness, if not the insincerity, of the relation of the cultured men of our time to this phenomenon is striking. The relation to this matter in our cultured society is threefold: some look upon this phenomenon as something accidental, which arose from the peculiar political condition of Europe, and consider it corrigible, without the change of the whole structure of life, by means of external, diplomatic, international measures; others look upon this phenomenon as upon something terrible and cruel, but inevitable and fatal, like a disease or death; others again calmly and coolly look upon war as an indispensable, beneficent, and therefore desirable phenomenon.
Again, the biggest moral issue Tolstoy sees is compulsory military service. Here he attacks how it is defended or at least explained by those of the ruling and writing class. Some argue that military service has become necessary because of different political and social events that they can trace, which, considering his historical skepticism, Tolstoy finds unhelpful. Interestingly, Tolstoy has them as believing the rise of compulsory military service being an accident and being wrong in believing this. Tolstoy seems to claim that it is obvious why military service is required, somewhat butting against his general idea of historical skepticism, but at the same time meshing with his idea the historical roots and reasons of oppression being obvious and apparent to all. Others, like Plato and Aristotle above, believe that it is necessary to the political system and cannot be changed without serious change to institutions (Tolstoy agrees, but unlike those he is arguing against here, he wants to change or remove himself from the institutions, while the others want to maintain the current system). The other class of people believe that it is a necessary evil, like some of the American patriots believed that government was a necessary evil. These defeatists are probably the ones that Tolstoy has the most disdain for, and while many well-meaning people fall under this class, it is probably the most frustrating for its lack of imagination. Life cannot get better, so we should just accept that this evil is necessary and a part of life. The final class actually tries to argue that violence is good and that war is necessary, as is military service. It is not difficult to find members of each class in our society and political climate. But next, Tolstoy spends a significant amount of time quoting those who argue for international reforms and a proto-United Nations, only to dismiss their ideas as unrealistic because they do not understand the basic nature of governments and military power.
It is wonderful how men can deceive themselves. The governments will decide to submit their differences to a court of arbitration and so will disband their armies. The differences between Russia and Poland, between England and Ireland, between Austria and Bohemia, between Turkey and the Slavs, between France and Germany will be decided by voluntary consent. This is the same as though it should be proposed that merchants and bankers should not sell anything at a higher price than at what they have bought the articles, should busy themselves with the distribution of wealth without profit, and should abolish the money which has thus become useless.
Governments cannot and will not give up their power voluntarily, which sounds like the opening statement in an argue for violent revolution, though this is of course not argued for by Tolstoy. However, it is important to remember that Tolstoy believed that government's essential nature is based on violence and that it cannot be otherwise, so asking governments to give up their power to each other will not work. And today, while you can point to some of the United Nations's efforts as doing positive in the world, it has not stopped unilateral aggression and violence, just as Tolstoy would have predicted. Without dethroning government, which can only be done by non-participation since violence only breeds more violent replacements, and ending the structure that necessitates government and militaries (perhaps using the more direct and meaningful term of military instead of government will be helpful, especially in this section), governments will not give up their militaries and tools of violence and chances of reform are almost nonexistent.
history shows that from Caesar to Napoleon, both the first and the third, and Bismarck, the government has by its essence always been a justice-impairing force, as, indeed, it cannot be otherwise.
The Napoleons are not exceptions to the rule, but are in fact governments in essence (there were no correct sides in the Crimean War and the coalitions against Napoleon were monarchs that were working to suppress freedom and democracy). Governments can't be different than what they are. Their very essence is to repress freedom. They are outdated institutions that stand in the way of justice and our moral consciousness.
the governments cannot agree to the diminution of the number of these drilled men, who obey them and who form all their strength and significance.
Governments are propped up by their militaries, whose violence solidifies their power. Governments have no incentive to reduce their military forces or enter into agreements that reduce their military forces (the advent of nuclear weapons forcing agreements to reduce military forces could be brought up, though weapons are a part of the military and only economic forces have proved effective in reducing nuclear weapons in some countries, and only the countries that suffer the negative consequences of the economic forces, which often breeds resentment and rebellion usually defined as terrorism). This is why governments teach their subjects to honor their militaries, hold them in esteem, and parade them around. They are displays of authority to scare citizens, at least those who do not buy into the honor of the militaries, into submission.
The governments, simply the kings, who travel about with their ministers, of their own accord deciding the questions as to whether they shall begin the slaughter of millions this year or next, know full well that their talks about peace will not keep them, whenever they feel like it, from sending millions to slaughter. The kings even listen with pleasure to these talks, encourage them, and take part in them. All this is not only harmless, but even useful to the governments, in that it takes people's minds away from the most essential question, as to whether each individual man, who is called to become a soldier, should perform the universal military service or not. "Peace will soon be established, thanks to alliances and congresses and in consequence of books and pamphlets, but in the meantime go, put on uniforms, and be prepared to oppress and torture yourselves for our advantage," say the governments. And the learned authors of congresses and of writings fully agree to this. This is one relation, the most advantageous one for the governments, and so it is encouraged by all wise governments.
Talks of reform and advocates for agreement and peace only play into the hand of the governments, who can pretend to take them seriously and thus look sincere in working for peace, which nearly all governments do, pretending that they are the ones working for peace and are in the right while their enemies are the ones that want war and "cause" them to join the war (even in offensive campaigns, governments often claim to have been "provoked" or have their hands forced by the behavior of the invaded nation. If this sounds like the excuses of those causing abuse in a domestic relationship, the parallel of aggression is probably not inappropriate). These focuses on reforms distract humankind from focusing on the real questions that affect humanity. Asking how governments should agree to be more peaceful wastes time because we are not focusing on how violence is wrong and governments breed violence by necessity. It is important, just as it is for Tolstoy in historical events to view from a more God-like perspective rather than focusing on political causes, to step back away from political intrigue and reformation and to focus on how humanity should live their lives without violence and without military service. A little military service is bad, so the plain reduction or restructuring of military and war in general still leads to an unsavory result, just like improving working conditions does not solve the problem of people spending half their waking time doing what they do not like and has no purpose. Importantly, engaging in discussion about military reforms justifies the military order and gives legitimacy to governments by presupposing that their power, though perhaps being limited by reforms, is a necessary aspect of life. Below, Tolstoy takes an aim at the cynical or those who cannot envision an end to war and the violence of the governmental system.
The author sees all the horror of war; he sees that its cause is in this, that the governments, deceiving people, compel them to go out to kill and die without any need; he sees also that the men composing the armies might turn their weapons against the governments and demand accounts from them. But the author thinks that this will never happen, and that, therefore, there is no way out of this situation. He thinks that the business of war is terrible, but that it is inevitable and that the demands of the governments that the soldiers shall go and fight are as inevitable as death, and that, since the governments will always demand it, there will always exist wars.
As is the majority of the intellectual class's reaction to optimistic theories about anarchism and volunteerism, the author Tolstoy discusses above thinks that the idea of ending war is a nice idea, but it is something that will never happen and cannot be seriously considered as an option. The continual support, no matter the intention of the person, of violence is what allows violence to continue. Disillusionment and non-participation are understandable reactions to the current problems of violence, but this attitude supports the current system. It is quite convenient for those in power to say that the system is broken and nothing will ever change. To disappoint those who want to change things and make them give up is just as powerful, if not more powerful, than converting them to support the violence of war outright. If nothing can stop war and it becomes a necessity of everyday life, then there is no reason to act in a way that prevents violence. Though, for Tolstoy, those who find excuses to support authority and violent are even more horrendous.
These people are queer, but those...professing the law of evolution, recognize war not only as unavoidable, but even as useful, and so as desirable, are strange and terrible with their moral perversion. The others at least say that they hate the evil and love the good, but these simply recognize that there is no good and no evil. All the talk about establishing peace, in the place of eternal war, is a harmful sentimental rodomontade of babblers. There is a law of evolution, from which it follows that I must live and act badly. What is to be done? I am an educated man, and I know the law of evolution, and so I will act badly.
Social Darwinism doesn't quite exist as an intellectual force today as it did during Tolstoy's time, though excuses for capitalism often use Social Darwinist arguments. And the person that Tolstoy argues against here is less like the modern neo-conservative that argues that war is good because it provides overall benefits to society and more like what we might call a moral nihilist (Russian Nihilists of Tolstoy's time, Dostoevsky's worst enemies intellectually, were much different than the way we understand nihilism today). Nothing is good, everything is permitted and those who can seize power will seize power and there is nothing that can stop them and no one should try to stop them. This may sound somewhat like the arguments of Friedrich Nietzsche, or more importantly and maybe more accurately, the arguments of Fascism. The fittest survive and some cultures will and should prevail over others and war and extermination will be how this will be settled. It is a frightening element that existed in Tolstoy's time as well as ours today.
No comments:
Post a Comment