« Election 2006: Domestic politics | Main | Tracinski on the population bomb »

January 13, 2007

Tracinski on the non-collapse of civilization

I have decided to write a series of posts addressing Rob Tracinski's "What Went Right?" series in TIA Daily. Without saying much more, let me begin at the beginning.

Tracinski writes:

In order to understand why the absence of a civilizational collapse is such a big story, it is important to remember the first half of the 20th century. During those years, civilization was collapsing. It was collapsing culturally, with such trends as the rise of incomprehensible, non-representational Modernist art, unintelligible Modernist literature, and the screeching dissonance of Modernist music—all of it a precipitous collapse from the high achievements of 19th-century art and literature. But most of all, it was a political and economic collapse, with two World Wars, the Great Depression, and the rise to power of two totalitarian movements, Fascism and Communism.

...

Then something remarkable happened: civilization did not collapse.

From about 1980 to today—a period of a quarter century, too long to be a mere blip or historical detour—it was the enemies of civilization who collapsed. And more: civilization has not merely avoided a collapse. It has grown and expanded. It is thriving.

This basic premise, that civilization is not collapsing, is what forms the basis for Tracinski's subsequent theorizing. Since Objectivism has not taken over, and since philosophy is supposed to be the fundamental motor of history, Tracinski's puzzle is: why is civilization not collapsing? He proceeds to develop a hypothesis about history according to which major philosophic change is not needed for historical progress. In framing this hypothesis, Tracinski draws on some important, perhaps even unappreciated truths. However I think that the balance of his presentation is unconvincing.

I would like to tease apart the true and the false from Tracinski's presentation by doing the same for his major premise: that civilization is not collapsing. I might have agreed with him on this premise about ten years ago, during the height of the 1990s boom. Most of the rest of this essay draws on facts that one might just as easily have observed in the 1990s: concerning the collapse of communism, the spread of free markets around the globe, and the absence of global war. These three achievements are real and undeniable. But how permanent are they? Let me consider each in turn.

Communism has indeed collapsed, both politically and intellectually. This is cause for celebration insofar as it has removed a major military threat and opened the door to the spread of free markets and prosperity. And it is also true that communism did not collapse because of a philosophical revolution in the East or in the West. Communism collapsed because of the "facts on the ground" that communist theory could not countenance: centrally planned economies cannot produce as promised, and regimes defaulting on this promise cannot retain the moral sanction of their citizens.

But what do we get in place of communism? Tracinski acknowledges that there is some reason for concern about the future of "Russia and a few former Soviet republics," but never to worry, a bunch of Eastern European states are okay. I find it stunning that the return of Russia to authoritarian rule should be so easily dismissed, when that country is brimming with nuclear weapons and newfound oil wealth. China's future is likewise uncertain, for reasons not needing elaboration.

The spread of free markets is also surely a result of "facts on the ground," not necessarily ideological revolution. Global statist policies led to stagnation, and it did not take philosophy to realize this. But the collapse of the old system does not guarantee its replacement by something better--or permanent. In much of the third world, collapse of state socialism has been accompanied by anarchic mafioso economics, not by the rule of law and a system of property rights (as has been well-documented by Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto).

This and other forms of corruption have fueled a global anti-capitalist ("anti-globalization") movement, lead by American intellectuals, which is now seeing its first victories in Latin America. One by one we have seen leftist politicians--and dictators--assume power in countries that once promised free market reform: Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador. At one time it was fashionable to think of Fidel Castro as a throwback to a bygone era, the last stubborn relic of the socialist past. Who would have thought in 1997 that Fidel would inspire a new generation of Latin American socialists--and that the United States would be so impotent to oppose them? It is probably not insignificant that the new Latin American socialist revolutionaries have succeeded in fusing socialism with Christianity--a force that has never lost ideological power in that part of the world.

And now for the widespread peace of the last few decades. It is true that humanity has managed to avoid another war on the scale of the first two world wars. And it is also true that this has not been a result of any special philosophic revolution. Wars have become limited in scale because of the increasing economic integration of the major powers, and probably more importantly, because of the deterrent power of nuclear weapons. Just as communism collapsed because of its failed promises, so too has the ideology of militarism. It has become too obvious that one nation cannot prosper by destroying its neighbors. War has simply become unthinkable for civilized men.

But what about uncivilized men? The most stunning omission from Tracinski's essay is any discussion of the significance of the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001. It is difficult to imagine how one could project such optimism about the "non-collapse of civilization," when each of us witnessed the literal collapse of some of civilization's most cherished symbols on that infamous day.

Rob Tracinski thought that Islamism was sufficiently dangerous to justify voting for welfare-statist, religionist "compassionate conservatives," on the doubtful chance that they might fight the war better than the liberals. Elsewhere I have challenged this conclusion. But how is it that Tracinski could simultaneously recognize that threat as a factor in the election, but fail to see its significance for the decline of civilization?

Because of its philosophical heritage, Western civilization has produced wealth and technology on an unprecedented scale--to the point where this wealth and technology begins to act as an insurance policy against future threats. But this is an insurance policy that can only be cashed in for a limited time. For just as wealth and technology transfer the intellectual power of the past to contemporaries who do not understand the cultural achievements that made it possible, so too can they transfer power to enemies of those achievements. Uncivilized men are not deterred by economic integration or mutually assured destruction. Left unchallenged, they will use the fruits of their enemy's system to destroy it.

There have been many civilizations in the past which, for a time, produced wondrous technological achievements and, by their example, spread prosperity and civilization to their neighbors. But without a philosophical conviction of their rectitude, they could not survive. The resentful barbarians had other plans.

Posted by admin at January 13, 2007 03:45 PM

Comments

Posted by: Dan at January 13, 2007 06:53 PM

Posted by: Walter Haxton at May 5, 2007 03:28 PM

Post a comment