Descartes' Legacy: The Century of the Self

[vimothy]

Well, I've actually have seen the Power of Nightmares and didn't think very much of that. Well written perhaps, well edited (definitely well edited), but still fairly silly (the stuff about Strauss is a good example of what I mean). That was a very conspiratorial programme.

As for the Trap, it's been pretty hard to ignore, what with all of the press and hype surrounding the series, though you are right, I haven't seen it. I don't see what difference watching it will make though - I think the summaries posted here sum up his argument pretty well. Game theory - libertarian economists - death of civc feeling - selfish capitalist country? What am I missing?

 

[Guybrush]

Well, I've actually have seen the Power of Nightmares and didn't think very much of that. Well written perhaps, well edited (definitely well edited), but still fairly silly (the stuff about Strauss is a good example of what I mean). That was a very conspiratorial programme.

As for the Trap, it's been pretty hard to ignore, what with all of the press and hype surrounding the series, though you are right, I haven't seen it. I don't see what difference watching it will make though - I think the summaries posted here sum up his argument pretty well. Game theory - libertarian economists - death of civc feeling - selfish capitalist country? What am I missing?

What was your problem with how Leo Strauss was represented in The Power of Nightmares?

 

[vimothy]

Right: Leo Strauss. This slightly ammends something I wrote elsewere.

Personally I think the whole Leo Strauss thing is overplayed as far as the neocons and politics goes. I watched the Power of Nightmares and have read Hersch (who I guess Curtis has read) and I know what is suggested, however there are a few things you should consider.

Regarding "noble lies" and myths, Strauss doesn't advocate their use so much as ask whether they are an inevitable necessity, that is to say he "does not bring to light the best possible regime but rather the nature of political things- the nature of the city." Strauss is not attempting to encourage sinister secret masonic cabals within government but is asking (in the context of political philosophy remember, not as a Washington think tank) whether it is possible for politicians to be completely honest and still act in the best interests of their constituents and society. He's not advocating an ideal, but examining politics as is. This is an important distinction which is glossed over in the Power of Nightmares. Strauss was a philosopher, not a politician.

It is also not necessarily the case that Strauss is the guiding light of the neocons. Wolfowitz studied at the university of Chicago and attended some classes taught by Strauss, but then I'm sure he would have attended classes taught by lots of people - why not attribute US foreign policy to some of his other lecturers? For instance, why not bring up Wohlstetter who also taught at the University of Chicago and was an influence on some now prominent neocons, incluiding Wolfowitz?

"The fact is that Strauss bequeathed not a single legacy, but a number of competing legacies. It is a gross distortion to retrofit Strauss’s teachings to conform to the agenda of the political Right. His writings on a wide range of subjects continue to spark lively debate among students in a host of fields."

-- Steven B. Smith

Would Curtis only describe neocons in the current administration as Straussian? What about the "socialists for Nixon", what about Podhoretz and earlier neocon writers back when people might actually describe themselves as neocon, rather than it being more of a pejorative term?

"Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc."

-- David Horowitz

Ultimately, the idea that there is a secret group of people inventing wars to bring society together is, IMO, paranoid in the extreme. As sad as it is and as hard to accept by the human mind, society is governed by tiny, local-level interactions, not by informed super politicians pulling the strings in a James Bond villain style whilst enjoying cocktails and cigars in moutain hideouts. There is no 9/11 conspiracy (Straussian or Loose Changian), and there is no need to invent reactionary lunatics in love with death.

 

[old goriot]

Strauss was a philosopher, not a politician.

Your post was pretty reasonable, except for this line of reasoning (his aim was philosophical, not political). Strauss conceived of himself and philosophers in general as having an active political role in society, and favoured an extremely politicized academia. He was quite overt about it.

 

[vimothy]

He might have been highly politicised, but still, he wasn't a politician in the sense that Cheney or Clinton are (or whoever) - he was an academic. Wolfowitz sat two courses run by Strauss, one on Montesquieu's spirit of the laws and one on Plato's laws. Just classes, no conspiracy. Curtis basically knew how he wanted the neocons to appear and Strauss was a useful tool for that. I don't really see any difference between that and what he is saying in the Trap.

 

[old goriot]

He might have been highly politicised, but still, he wasn't a politician in the sense that Cheney or Clinton are (or whoever) - he was an academic. Wolfowitz sat two courses run by Strauss, one on Montesquieu's spirit of the laws and one on Plato's laws. Just classes, no conspiracy. Curtis basically knew how he wanted the neocons to appear and Strauss was a useful tool for that. I don't really see any difference between that and what he is saying in the Trap.

yeah, all I'm saying is that (whether or not Wolfowitz took it to heart) Strauss openly advocated philosophical indoctrination within the academia as a means of exerting political power and shaping public policy outside of the academia.

You're right, it's not a conspiracy if he openly teaches these ideas, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be questioned when they do actually seep into politics i.e. the Bush administration's highly Platonic conception of politics

 

[vimothy]

yeah, all I'm saying is that (whether or not Wolfowitz took it to heart) Strauss openly advocated philosophical indoctrination within the academia as a means of exerting political power and shaping public policy outside of the academia.

Got any links?

 

[old goriot]

Got any links?

Not off the top of my head, but I have read Strauss and been taught by several well-known Straussians. I think I gave a pretty fair assessment of the man's views. I can look it up if you really want, but I'd rather not bother.

 

[vimothy]

Not off the top of my head, but I have read Strauss and been taught by several well-known Straussians. I think I gave a pretty fair assessment of the man's views. I can look it up if you really want, but I'd rather not bother.

You don't have to look it up; what texts are you refering to?

 

[old goriot]

You don't have to look it up; what texts are you refering to?

In the course I am thinking of we read parts of The History of Political Philosophy.

The thing is, you know that you are asking an impossible task of me. I cannot give textual evidence for Strauss's true beliefs because they are communicated esoterically, and are only properly understood by someone who is taught the meaning of his paradoxes by a Straussian, whose predecessors somewhere down the line were taught by Strauss himself.

 

[Guybrush]

I find the argument over whether Strauss himself supported the use of ‘noble lies’ or not less interesting than whether the other claims made in the series are true. A few that I remember are: 1. that the communist and islamist threats were inflated to rally and ignite the masses behind the conservative cause; 2. that those threats were not as grave as was believed at the time, and that they were caving-in by themselves anyway (Soviet Union, roughly, throughout the 80s; islamism from the mid-90s onwards); 3. that some beliefs, common with conservatives (e.g. that Reagan brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union), therefore are foolish.

This all seems pretty obvious and non-conspiratorial to me. One could argue, as Gek-Opel seems to do, that Curtis deliberately disregard important sidetracks to create a more effective narrative, but that’s unavoidable if you set out to cover as broad a scope as he does.

 

[vimothy]

I find the argument over whether Strauss himself supported the use of ‘noble lies’ or not less interesting than whether the other claims made in the series are true. A few that I remember are: 1. that the communist and islamist threats were inflated to rally and ignite the masses behind the conservative cause; 2. that those threats were not as grave as was believed at the time, and that they were caving-in by themselves anyway (Soviet Union, roughly, throughout the 80s; islamism from the mid-90s onwards); 3. that some beliefs, common with conservatives (e.g. that Reagan brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union), therefore are foolish.

I don't know why anyone would think that the collapse of the Soviet Union related to anything other than its inherent economic problems. But everything is easy with hindsight. For example, US economists working for the government actually over-estimated the power of the Soviet economy, working from the amount of steel used in their Armed Forces, but not paying attention to the quality of the steel. Lots of people thought that the USSR would win the Cold War. Obviously Curtis never had any doubts in the power of the west to see off the Communist threat, but personally I am glad other people took it more seriously. The USSR created a large Empire in neighbouring countries as well as spheres of influence around the world. It's frankly rather silly for Curtis to suggest that aggressive US foreign policies were the cause for (at least the later stages of) the Cold War. Isn't it?

So:
1. The threat was serious. The "cause" has nothing to do with being a conservative (who cares) and evertything to do with not wanting to see totalitarianism march across the earth. The same is true today.
2. "Threat" is a projection. If the DoD bought Soviet propaganda, they were not the only ones. The Soviet Union was self-destructing, however, very few people were actually aware of this. Ironically, Hayek (not a favourite of Curtis, apparently) was one of the few people who predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union - due to the dis-informative nature of the soviet pricing system (being proved right about the USSR is of course one of the reasons why the "neo-liberals" came to prominence after being ignored as weirdos for so many years). The Soviet Union was a danger to itself and to those other countries where it established Communist dictatoships, and to those countries were it fermented dissent. Curtis thinks that there was a conspiracy to exagerate this to the American people because the neocons wanted a noble lie to bind society together. Is that believable? It is pure conjecture, in any case. And not even good conjecture.
3. So what? Personally, I would have thought that good conservatives would be aware that the Soviet Union defeated itself because Communism is unworkable economically, not because of anything the US did, but, you know, I don't see why it matters. The important thing is that the totalitarianism didn't win.

In the Power of Nightmares, Curtis starts with half truths and conjecture, because he already knows what his conclusions will be: neoconservativism = al Qaeda. It's not even original.

(And can I ask: in what sense was Islamism caving in from the mid '90s onwards? Do you think then that the US is responsible for resuscitating it)?

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

I don't know why anyone would think that the collapse of the Soviet Union related to anything other than its inherent economic problems.

But its collapse wasn't the result of economic problems, mush less inherent ones; it was entirely political, a direct result of Gorbachov's glasnost and perestroika in the 1980s [ie the incubation by political means of neo-liberal ideology].

Cuba has suffered from "inherent economic problems" for over forty years. Why hasn't it collapsed? The U.S. today is massively insolvent as an economic entity [unprecedented debts and deficits running into trillions]. Why hasn't it collapsed?

The USSR created a large Empire in neighbouring countries as well as spheres of influence around the world. It's frankly rather silly for Curtis to suggest that aggressive US foreign policies were the cause for (at least the later stages of) the Cold War. Isn't it?

Not at all silly, just historically correct [from McCarthyism to Korea, from the Bay of Pigs to Vietnam].

So:
1. The threat was serious.

You mean McCarthyism was "serious"?

3. So what? Personally, I would have thought that good conservatives would be aware that the Soviet Union defeated itself because Communism is unworkable economically, not because of anything the US did, but, you know, I don't see why it matters. The important thing is that the totalitarianism didn't win.

Communism [at least historically] is an authoritarian system; neo-liberalism is a totalitarian system ...

 

[Mr. Tea]

So, what did everyone think of Part 3? Rivetting (and worrying) stuff. I had no idea of the level of American involvement in the economic reforms in Russia in the early 90s, I have to say, and it's very depressing to think the same people are now involved in the 'restructuring' of Iraq.

 

[Guybrush]

So, what did everyone think of Part 3? Rivetting (and worrying) stuff. I had no idea of the level of American involvement in the economic reforms in Russia in the early 90s, I have to say, and it's very depressing to think the same people are now involved in the 'restructuring' of Iraq.

I haven’t seen the last part yet, but I have read a few books on the Russian 90s. What I remember most vividly is how everyone involved cared more about making the reforms irrevocable than of how the reforms would affect the country in the short run. ‘Breaking the neck of the communists’, I think Jeltsin put it. That whole mess is one of the great disgraces in recent years. It is also largely responsible for the increased repression Russia has witnessed under Putin (without freeing him and his cabal from responsibility, of course) in that it undermined the ordinary Russian’s confidence in democratic institutions and ‘Western’ values.

 

[Mr. Tea]

That's just what Curtis was saying: that Russians were so sick of the terrible economic instability and poverty that followed the fall of the old regime that they needed security more than they needed freedom (can you ever imagine your average American saying that?), that freedom of press and so on is not the primary concern of a man with no food to eat.

 

[Guybrush]

(And can I ask: in what sense was Islamism caving in from the mid '90s onwards? Do you think then that the US is responsible for resuscitating it)?

Loads of things to reply to in your original message, but I will try to answer this one for now.

It’s important to separate islam from islamism (political islam) when discussing this topic. I’m sure you already knew this, but it’s worth repeating. The late 90s is considered a (recent) nadir for islamism because: the islamists effectively had lost the civil war in Algeria; the 1997 massacre in Luxor had triggered a harsh crackdown on islamists in Egypt; the election of the reformer Mohammad Khatami as president of Iran was seen as a defeat for religious dogmatism; the improved conditions in Israel-Palestine made the islamist’s inflammatory language less fertile.

That the U.S. has played a role in resuscitating islamism is undeniable, I would say. To which extent is debatable, of course, and to suggest that they have done it on purpose, even more so.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

The Spectre Hasn't Gone Away You Know

Curtis finally gets to the rub ...

The excellent Part III [broadcast on 25th March 2007] of Adam Curtis' latest three-part BBC documentary series, The Trap.

"The series argues that post-war Western society was lured away from collectivist models of social solidarity towards an individualistic and selfish concept of 'freedom' that is ultimately empty and destructive."

Watch part III here (real media format, 30mb):

The Trap – What Happened To Our Dream Of Freedom: We Will Force You to be Free

[Sequence of topics: Isaiah Berlin, antagonisms of liberty, revolution, the French Revolution, Communism, the Soviet Union, Algeria and Franz Fanon/Gillies Pontecorvo/Jean-Paul Sartre, physical-force violence, Pol Pot/Kymer Rouge, Kissinger/real-politic, the U.S. neo-cons/"democratic revolutionaries", the 1979 Iranian Revolution and growth of militant Shia Islamism, 1980s U.S. neo-con moral crusade and token democracy ... (cue title soundtracks to NorthByNorthWest, Carrie, Assault on Precinct 13) ... Nicaragua and the Sandinistas vs Reagan's Contras, spin/PR and perception management, Iran/Contra, Soviet Collapse, Fukuyama, negative freedom utopianism, Russian state-assets violent sell-off/privatisation to elite oligarchy, Putin and nationalistic state security, Blairism, Kosovo and "humanitarian interventionism" ... 9/11 ... from Iraq and radical privatisation to chaos, preventionism and domestic , repression in US/UK, nihilistic reality principle - the trap: Berlin was wrong ...].

 

[vimothy]

But its collapse wasn't the result of economic problems, mush less inherent ones; it was entirely political, a direct result of Gorbachov's glasnost and perestroika in the 1980s [ie the incubation by political means of neo-liberal ideology].

Right - it was the neo-liberals. I should have known really, it's always the fault of the neo-liberals. Probably acting with the support of their reptile masters from the planet Quarg. What is it with those guys, by the way? How come a few beardy, other-wise ignorable Mont Pelerin Society oddballs have managed to ruin humanity so conclusively?

Anyway, what you're saying is that the Soviet economy was strong and sustainable and that it could have continued along its merry way indefinitely had Gorbachov not betrayed it to the forces of neo-liberalism?

Cuba has suffered from "inherent economic problems" for over forty years. Why hasn't it collapsed? The U.S. today is massively insolvent as an economic entity [unprecedented debts and deficits running into trillions]. Why hasn't it collapsed?

Yeah, go on... why?

Not at all silly, just historically correct [from McCarthyism to Korea, from the Bay of Pigs to Vietnam].

What? The USA didn't "cause" the Cold War, it happened.

You mean McCarthyism was "serious"?

This has nothing to do with McCarthyism.

Communism [at least historically] is an authoritarian system; neo-liberalism is a totalitarian system ...

Complete and utter bullshit. Absolute utter bullshit, your ridiculous caveat even more so. The USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship and it represents the exact opposite of everything I understand about freedom and liberty. "Neo-liberalism" is just a catchy pejorative phrase which you fling about in the place of reasoned argument. The classical liberalism of British and French tradition (if that's what you mean) is the antithesis of totalitarianism in every way, whereas true communist suppression of free markets and exchange of goods for personal profit is impossible without a system of totalitarian controls.

 

[Guybrush]

Communism [at least historically] is an authoritarian system; neo-liberalism is a totalitarian system ...

Complete and utter bullshit. Absolute utter bullshit, your ridiculous caveat even more so. The USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship and it represents the exact opposite of everything I understand about freedom and liberty. "Neo-liberalism" is just a catchy pejorative phrase which you fling about in the place of reasoned argument. The classical liberalism of British and French tradition (if that's what you mean) is the antithesis of totalitarianism in every way, whereas true communist suppression of free markets and exchange of goods for personal profit is impossible without a system of totalitarian controls.

Actually, hundredmillionlifetimes was careful to get the nuances right here, as he writes ‘historically’ precisely to exclude the Soviet Union—I think.

Here is Wikipedia on Totalitarianism (an ok definition, if you ask me):

Totalitarianism is a term employed by some political scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior.

While this word is seldom used to describe the U.S.A. of today, for example, it is not inconceivable that it could. For one thing, it depends on how you define ‘regulate’.