February Retreat

The Hard Line
 

Things have gotten tougher lately. There is, at last, a clear cut difference between the political Left and Right in the United States which is recognized in public discourse. I think that is a good thing, whether or not the government acts on one agenda or another.
 

I'm a Left-wing hard-liner. I think my view is correct, and that the future is with the Left. Conservatism is finished, even if, for a time, it arises here or there; even if, for a time, it dominates whole countries. I think the grand course of human history supports my outlook.
 

So, I take it Plato's dictum is one dividing line between Left and Right. Those who waver on the line, saying maybe older is better, or maybe not, must eventually get shoved one way or the other. All of our presents are fleeting, quick-frozen into past. Only our futures are indeterminate; only the future allows something new, something different. In the end, it is the future we are all forced to grasp.
 

In Roman Days and for some time thereafter, slavery was a common condition. By the Medieval period, it had largely disappeared everywhere in favor of serfdom. Slavery in the American South was an anomaly on its first appearance. Slavery still exists here and there, but it is universally reviled. Slavers are considered criminals. So, in 2000 years, humans have gone from approving slavery to making it illegal.
 

In the last century or two, child labor has been outlawed. There is a standard work day and week. People cannot be overworked, and proper attention to health and safety is required. We have internationally accepted employment standards: employers abusing their charges risk arrest, trial and punishment.
 

There are lots of "reasons" why all these things and many more have changed since Ancient Times. The important thing, for the moment, is that the changes did occur, and that millions of people are better off. Moreover, social relations and expectations have changed permanently; those who are not better off are reasonable in expecting improvements in their condition as soon as possible. The fatalism of earlier times is gone. People want what is achievable now, and they want better lives in their lifetime, not in some ineffable hereafter.
 

So, think about it. Compare now and then. Are you better off? Are we better off? Is older really better?
 

For myself, the difference is clear cut. We are working toward a world in which people live longer, much better lives in every way. This didn't happen by staying put.
 

End of History?
 

Frances Fukuyama's thesis ("The End of History and the Last Man") is that the world has so progressed as to reach a climactic (perfect?) condition. As I understand his view, the modern era - especially in the West - is the culmination of eons of struggle and progress. We have reached some sort of pinnacle, and the outline of ideal, or nearly ideal, human and social forms is becoming visible.
 

Now, Francis Fukuyama is a neo-conservative. In his view, liberal democracy and capitalism are the end of history. But, watch out "liberal" means "liberal," as in LIBERTARIAN or 19th Century liberal. And, "end" doesn't mean where things stop; it means the purpose of history, as in 'goal'.
 

Should I adopt Fukuyama's purposive view of history? After all, I agree things are better now than 2,000 or 3,000 years ago. Still, I am obtuse, and cannot agree that being better off demonstrates historical directionality. When I agree that we are better off, it only means that most people will probably say they are better off than their remote ancestors. It is a comparative statement, based on what we know or believe about those ancient people. The fact that I, and millions of people, believe we are better off does not prove that humans are in the grip of some historical machine, forces of destiny. Our belief is just a fact about ourselves.

Endless History
 

I think history is essentially chaotic, which is not the same as being merely random. "Chaos" includes episodes of rational, predictable, organized behavior. For example, the global climate system is chaotic, but we can predict the local weather. Elements of a chaotic system can "coalesce" around an organizing point ("attractor"), and begin to behave according to logical, mathematical descriptions.
 

Gases and particles in inter-stellar or inter-galactic space move about more-or-less randomly, until they get entrained in a galactic or stellar gravitational field. Then, they begin to behave as Newton, as modified by Einstein, predicted. So, the random becomes predictable on account of external forces. But, what is the origin of those forces?
 

Gravity is essentially the same as "mass," something we all have. We feel we have mass, and we can feel gravity. But, do we know what it is? What we think we know is the laws of behavior under gravitation, but is that the same as what it is?
 

The most we can say is we all have gravity, "built-in." If we are separated from other gravitational bodies by great distances and time, we behave as is our wont, approximately "randomly." Sooner or later, in this Universe, we will be influenced by other bodies, but it is unpredictable exactly when or how. From simple quarks and atoms, many configurations are possible; billions and trillions of combinations.
 

Human history is one of those configurations. It seems to have its own logic, to "progress" in a given way. But that is an appearance; it is just the pattern into which we have fallen. It could have been otherwise, without violating any law of Nature. That things happened a certain way, and appear to have a pattern, does not prove they must happen that way or that the pattern is anything more than a convenient illusion. Further, even if events are predictable, this proves nothing about origins and first causes. In tracing back the origin of an event, eventually all we find is chaos: it dissolves into the background.
 

Think of crystallization. What is the history of a sugar cube? If we go back far enough, we find nothing at all but sugar dissolved in the mother liquor. Which crystals form when? It depends on incalculable, random events - mere probabilities. Sugar crystals form every time the solution is cooled or dried out, but not necessarily the same crystals. Thought experiment: Consider that given sugar molecules might attach themselves to different nucleation centers depending on how the solution was mixed. So, once Napoleon Bonaparte was born in Corsica, but a small adjustment in migration brings him into the world Sicilian or Spanish or Greek.
 

Whatever It Is
 

Does history have a purpose? This is an old argument, and my answer is no. Things have gotten better, as we feel it, because that's the track into which we've fallen. I like it this way, but it could have been otherwise. If there is no purpose, no end, then Fukuyama's claim falls apart altogether. At best, liberal democracy and capitalism are the current states of the system, what we have evolved into. Fukuyama's favored socio-political systems are not necessarily the final state of human history; they are only what is happening among a minority of humans, albeit rich and influential ones.
 

But, let us suppose the idea of an end of history made sense. The Victorians felt that sense in what they called "progress." The social Darwinians and eugenicists felt they knew where things were going, and were justified in helping things along. So did the Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Stalinists, Fascists, Nazis and many other visionaries of the last few centuries. American Neo-conservatives and "Market Fundamentalists" are the latest group to make such a claims on and about history.
 

How do any of these people know theirs is the true "end' of history? A lot of them will tell you it's in someone's Bible: God whispered it in my ear. That answer is as old as the oldest Pharaoh, who claimed divine descent. For those who believe history is supernaturally informed, Plato's rule ('what is older is better') plus heredity are a sufficient cause for present claims. People who believe this sort of thing, including most religious people, are by nature conservative, or even reactionary.
 

Those who do not believe in divine right or inspiration are hard pressed to prove there is an end of history. The historical record does not demonstrate an inherent goal. In fact, thousands or millions of goals might be discerned, some greater, some lesser. The laws of physics do not reveal anything about the purpose of human history, and very little about biological evolution on our planet. The fact that humans evolved in a certain way, learned to walk, use tools, and laugh and talk does not have any "inner" logic that requires a certain future development. If anything, human evolution shows that human behavior is increasingly complex and unpredictable. We are becoming less programmed.
 

Using Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that there is no explanation. Historical patterns are just what each of us make of them. To the degree any theory of history allows testable predictions, that theory might be "scientific." So far, all the theories of the Newtonian type - linear theories - fail to predict outcomes. Theories of divine intervention avoid the question altogether, but give no consistent basis or insight for any prediction.
 

Even my cherished "chaos theory" has no real proof. So, herewith, I will identify historical chaos as merely a conjecture. Whether that notion has productive consequences remains to be seen.
 

About the only thing we know about human events is what explains them in the miniature. We can predict what people we know well will do in this or that circumstance. Public officials and governments are fairly predictable. But, the larger the scale, the less we know the path and the outcome of human affairs.
 

Huge crowds demonstrated joyfully in Paris, Berlin and London in August, 1914. They welcomed the Great War, and believed their side would win. It seemed God was on their side. The war would be over shortly. Thus Europe unwittingly assigned its fate to a throw of dice.
 

The Left and History
 

Back to the beginning.
 

The Right always makes claims about priority, heredity and divine authority. As we say in northern California, the Right is "judgmental."
 

Conservatives believe in things: right, wrong, obey, disobey, do or die. Conservatives are natural candidates for the military, and much of their lives is regulated by a military codes. Conservatives believe in order and discipline, and that is what the military provides in every way. The conservative order of things relieves the insecurity most people have about themselves and their lives. In the authoritarian society, everyone has a place, and everyone is in his place.
 

I would have you notice that 'keeping your place' is typically an aristocratic notion, defined by aristocrats. Having a "vocation" and many other similar ideas are ways of suggesting that each person is "destined" to be a certain thing. A vocation is something you are born to be; a job or trade is something you find or develop.
 

Conservatives, the Right, are authoritarian, rigid and punitive, because they believe in the eternal order which can only be one way, their way.
 

So, here we get to the notion I keep coming back to: at the bottom of Left wing political philosophy is disorder, chaos. Lefties don't like the graded social order, scraping, bowing and curtseying. Lefties see no basis for the approved social order; thus, it must be that everyone is equal and, in most things, the same.
 

For the Left, to the extent that any social order is legitimate, it is entirely based on consent. We have "the consent of the governed," democracy, at the core of American Government. Aristocracy, rigid social order and authoritarianism are ipso facto un-American. The Founding Fathers realized that, and said so; e.g., the Constitution outlaws titles in American society.
 

What the present Government of George W Bush, and his supporters, are trying to do is subvert the Constitution and our system of government. They are attempting what every Pharaoh had to do. First, there must be an established religion. Then, the shamans will invoke divine blessings on the Chosen One - the King. Divinely inspired Kings, Pharaohs and Popes always speak ex cathedra, so there can be no question their decisions are righteous. Once we have instilled the fuehrer-prinzip into the King's followers, they and everyone become subjects. Eventually, some subjects become serfs and then slaves, while others are elevated to ranks above those lowly persons.
 

The important thing about the system of the right is that it always has the same outline, regardless of the players. It's like an ant colony as seen by humans: they all look the same and appear to have the same players. Most of us cannot tell the difference between one queen or worker and another; we can only discern their behavior. And, in fact, workers can become Queens when the colony has none. So, it really is only a matter of what roles they play.
 

That's the point: it really is only a matter of what roles they play. Lefties can see this clearly; conservatives cannot. If there is no necessity in history, no end (purpose), then, historical justifications amount to stories people tell themselves to cloak the insecurity of their positions. That is all, just comforting stories; that is why most conservatives rely on some work of authority or other.
 

But, you ask, but what is the Left's philosophy? Why are you not explaining it? Because, at the bottom of it all, there cannot be any.
 

We are just creatures on this planet. Were I a lion or a nematode, I would not be writing this. Being human, I can write this. Probably, there are lots of ETs that can write this. Maybe, someday, chimps will be able to write this. What does this say of my existence? Just that I am a somewhat specialized life form, with a special talent for writing.
 

What's the difference between what I do and the proverbial monkey on the keyboard? I think it is I have an idea, and the monkey doesn't. I can co-ordinate what I write with verbal expressions and social activities. I might induce others to different behaviors as a result of reading my writings (as compared with a control group).
 

But, I only think these things because I'm a human and can observe other humans. I really have no idea whether the monkey thinks parallel thoughts, and influences other monkeys in similar ways. I just don't know, so I have to admit everything I said about myself is just another conceit. I don't really know that I am not a monkey on the keyboard.
 

Humble Pie
 

If history has no purpose, and whatever order appears is merely our unproved "intuition," then it is impossible to justify the social order by some historical pattern or trend.

The social order can be justified only upon an examination of our species, its needs and behavior. I propose a neo-Aristotelian question, 'what is our nature?'
 

My partial answer to that question is that, for the most part, we are like the ants and bees. 'Man is a social animal,' said Aristotle. We have differentiated social functions in a complex economy. Most instances of our species could handle most of the jobs done by others. There may be a few jobs that are so specialized as to require genetic qualification (are there born professors and surgeons?), but, for the most part, most of us can be successful janitors or CEOs.
 

In the course of each life, specialization becomes more and more entrenched. It is very difficult, and probably uneconomic, to retrain a 50 year old laborer to be a proficient neurosurgeon. We become committed to what we became, in the same way as we develop from a single fertilized egg. The arrow of time enforces progressively irreversible specialization. This does not deny the underlying equality of the stuff from which each of us is made. It only shows that we are very malleable in our beginnings; more than most species.
 

If I am right, there is no reason why some people are "better" than others. There is no reason for any particular social order. There is no reason for one "morality" as opposed to another.
 

What follows is there is no reason for social classes and discrimination. No one has any more claim on the body politic than anyone else. On this view, market fundamentalism - ultra-capitalism - has no real basis. I view conservative economic and social policies as mere rationalizations of the social order by those who benefit from it.
 

We have no good reason for treating some people better than others. The more we elevate some, and denigrate others, the less reason we have.
 

In my opinion, it is all a matter of what is agreed, within the limits of our biology. We don't have any reason to agree to social stratification.