On Liberty and Peace - Part 2: Peace

Title page

On Liberty and Peace

Part Two

Peace

Matt Edge

SOCIETAS

essays in political

& cultural criticism

imprint-academic.com

Publisher information

Copyright © Matt Edge 2011, 2016

The moral rights of the author have been asserted.

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission, except for the quotation of brief passages in criticism and discussion.

Imprint Academic, PO Box 200, Exeter EX5 5YX, UK

Dedication

To Katie Jacobs

Whether or not the world will ever change,

or whether or not it may become what

either of us might want it to be,

you are the only one I wish to share that world with.

Quotations

‘We are a culture without the will to seriously examine our own problems. We eschew that which is complex, contradictory or confusing. As a culture, we seek simple solutions. We enjoy being provoked and titillated, but resist the rigorous, painstaking examination of issues that might, in the end, bring us to the point of recognizing our problems, which is the essential first step to solving any of them.’

David Simon

‘The Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.’

Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach

‘Won’t you help to sing ... These songs of freedom ...’

Bob Marley

Preface

How can human beings live, together, in conditions of peace over time? If there is any question which has dominated the history of political thought, or is central to the discipline itself, it is this. The present project is designed to contribute to this debate, to build, in other words, a theory of perpetual peace, the success of which is to be judged by you, alongside everyone else.

The first part of this project, Liberty, provided an argument as to why it should be you, together with everyone else, and not any representative, politician, parliamentarian, dictator, political philosopher, or junta, judging this matter. Readers interested in this argument can turn to Liberty, since it cannot be my purpose to repeat it here (nor do I have the space to do so). The present work builds upon this structure. For, here, I propose, to you (and everyone else) a theory of perpetual peace, to be judged, according to how well you, as a rational and/or moral being, think I have provided an account of socio-political structures in order to successfully realise our shared political and ethical values. These values include ‘peace’, ‘liberty’, ‘justice’, ‘democracy’ and ‘equality’. Do I succeed in describing a world - to you - which reflects those values, the shared terrain of our political and ethical life, in a genuine, and just, way? That is for you to judge.

Allow me to give a concise overview of the project. In Liberty, as I say, I argued that it should be down to us, you and me (and everyone else), to judge the fundamental questions of political philosophy. Based on the principle of first-person authority, this was a way of saying that we should live in a participatory democracy, and also a way of outlining a participatory political philosophy, one relevant to, and judged by, all human beings.[1]

Central to this was, and is, Donald Davidson’s theory of ‘triangulation’, which provides a brilliant, third-person, approach to a theory of knowledge. I have borrowed this theory of triangulation to provide a third-person approach to political philosophy, one which takes place, in other words, in the real world, between you and I, as we respond to, and interact with, in a unique and stimulating way, the moral and political fabric of the world. The political theorist, in this story, is merely one leg of a tripod, the other legs being you,[2] and the common world, the common ethical and political world in our case, we inhabit, and share, as human beings.[3] Without the other legs, the political theory topples.

The political theorist, in this story, is simply an interpreter,[4] an interpreter of that shared world. Without the second person (the role played by you, and everyone else), there is no way of judging the success of the theory. The final corollary is that the political and ethical theorist must be a good interpreter - he or she must be able to provide an effective account - to you, and everyone else - of our shared moral and political world. In an altogether different context, Davidson writes that role of the interpreter ‘requires that the interpreter correlate his own responses and those of the speaker by reference to the mutually salient causes in the world of which they speak.’[5] Without an effective interpretation of the moral universe we inhabit together,[6] the theory is doomed. Its words would be scarcely recognisable to you as responses to shared causal threads in the world. My attempt at interpretation, of interpreting our shared moral and political concepts and ordering them in an account of political justice then presented to you, would fail, and fail miserably.

The point, in other words, is that it is, in all likelihood, impossible to change the world without first offering an interpretation of it, without first showing (to borrow a messy phrase) ‘what is in the world’ to you, and everyone else, in these triangular exchanges, one of which we are engaged in now. For, if I am right, a good interpretation will find the clues which can help to make change possible and, indeed, successful. In other words, looking into the world of our inherited normative concepts - freedom, justice, peace, equality and the like - gives us a ‘leg up’ on change.[7] And this, in the case of our shared political and moral concepts, will be an investigation into language. In other words, materialism of a unique and linguistic kind. To quote Davidson, ‘meaning is entirely determined by observable behaviour, even readily observable behaviour. That meanings are decipherable is not a matter of luck; public availability is a constitutive aspect of language’.[8] I explored obvious problems with this in chapter three of Liberty, particularly in relation to how our shared language(s) are open to uncertainty and manipulation, and in relation to how our normative concepts might have different linguistic uses (if not meanings) from how they are generally employed today, but uncertainty can only go so far. As Hume realised, and Davidson has, at great length, explained, even division and dispute must be built on something.[9] Language is the greatest resource we have for political change, and language is what ties you and me, in the here and now, to each other, and to the passing show, to the beautiful and chaotic world which these pages attempt to describe. This is also why, if it needed saying, you and me are, in so many ways, the key to political change.

It is at this point where the present work comes in. I am now proposing my interpretation of our shared moral and political universe to you (and everyone else). Different accounts of the political will offer different theories of perpetual peace, and of justice. These will include liberalism, anarchism, conservatism, socialism, communism, and any number of other ideologies. Further, of course, each of these ideologies can hardly be said to possess a concrete and shared doctrine and so could offer, under their umbrellas, so to speak, any number of theories of peace and justice.

What follows below is my own attempt to provide a theory of peace. It is, I suppose, down to you to decide under what ideological umbrella it sits (if it sits under any), though I refer to it as a communistic theory of peace, because, essentially, it is based on the abolition of finance and financial exchange and the abolition of private property (which some possible exceptions). I call this, in chapter one, a ‘material sketch’ of perpetual peace because it confronts the everyday, empirical, relationships amongst human beings which cause, and nourish, conflict across the globe. In other words, a theory of peace, which focuses solely on the global interactions of modern nation states is not far reaching enough, since it concentrates on only one form of conflict, global war (or national civil wars). Yet, conflicts are much more endemic, more everyday, than this under nation-state capitalism. The answer I propose here requires a free and open cosmopolitan globe of free movement, and an equal access to choices and opportunities, for all humanity. I term this theory ‘egalitarian equal liberty’. However, could it not be objected that this is a misnomer, for what could constitute inegalitarian equal liberty? The answer - the present system of nation-state, liberal, capitalism, which offers human beings vastly unequal packages, or bundles, of individual liberty across the globe,[10] whilst, at the same time, proclaiming ‘equal liberty’ through a catalogue of equal basic rights. The equal liberty on offer here, however, is a different animal entirely, a much wider realm of free movement than simply the basic rights (though these, importantly, are included in all of our bundles of freedom), where my realm, or bundle, of individual liberty equals yours in a genuine, material, and everyday way.

Key, then, to my theory of peace is a theory of freedom.[11] This, in turn, is based on the principle of equal treatment. The best hope, I think, we have for a lasting, just, and desirable peace on the earth is to offer all human beings, regardless of wherever they are in the globe, equal treatment. And equal treatment, since there is no one way human beings should live, nor any one way in which they actually like to live, one way in which all can, without exception, find happiness, must, then, be based on a genuine, empirical, equal liberty. This means that the freedom available to me, must equal that available to you - my ‘freedom-bundle’ (as I term it) must equal yours - if a society is to fulfill the equal treatment criterion. Individual liberty, flawed though it is,[12] is the best means available to human beings to pursue happiness over a complete life.

We have recognised, on the global political sphere, the inherent equality of humankind.[13] My argument below amounts to the fact that the ultimate realisation of this inherent equality, an equality of treatment of all human beings, lies in allotting each and every one of us, across the globe, equal freedom. I propose one way in which this can be done in the pages that follow, though, doubtless, there will be others.[14] As I have said, it is now down to you (and everyone else) to judge the success, or otherwise, of these various positions, of these differing accounts of political justice and peace.

Two final words. Firstly, I should immediately point out that this is not a utopian project. It cannot, in other words, realise the complete and ultimate happiness of all human beings. Perhaps this will affect the way you judge the matter, perhaps it will not, but I can conceive of no way of ordering our alterable political structures so as to eliminate all clashes of interest, or so as to ensure that all of us can, without fail, realise our deepest wishes, dreams, hopes and desires. Perhaps we would not want such a society anyway,[15] but, regardless, it is not a society I know how to conceive of. If others can, let them try and I will listen, with open ears.

Secondly, what I describe below can be nothing more than a blueprint, an interpretation, a basic structure for ordering our political and ethical concepts, freedom, justice, equality, peace and the like, in real political life. As a blueprint, it is designed to be improved upon by you, and everyone else, over time. To quote from Wittgenstein (if I may), ‘I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking. But, if possible, to stimulate someone to thoughts of [sic.] his own.’[16] Egalitarian equal liberty, like any other theory, is something designed to be improved upon over time, and I can only hope that it will be.

I have tried to keep this introduction brief, but please permit me a few words of thanks before I move on to the main text. Where to start? The debt I owe so many people is such that I am sure to have omitted many of those whose kindness and inspiration has helped me along the way. For anyone I have forgotten, I can only apologise and hope that they will find a reflection of themselves somewhere in the words that follow.

I must start by repeating thanks to all those I mentioned at the beginning of Liberty. The same goes here - without all of them, the present project would simply never have happened. I must mention especially Quentin Skinner and Janet Coleman, both of whom offered their comments and thoughts following the publication of part one of this project. I must also thank all those who have read Liberty and who have offered comments on it - I hope that they, and many others, will now join the debate on line following the publication of the present work.[17]

I owe a huge debt of thanks to many friends and colleagues who read, and offered comments on, earlier drafts of this book (of which there have been a fair number). Thanks, here, to Steve Hood, Aleka Lianeri, Eftychia Bathrellou, Harry Platanakis and Papy Kalala. The same thanks to Conrad Nyamutata, with whom I also shared a number of inspiring evenings as this book neared its completion, and who I also thank for friendship over the past four years. He will, I hope, see the inspiration he has provided me in the pages that follow. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to Penny Walker, who read, and commented on, this manuscript, and to the residents of Coventry Peace House, with whom I shared a fascinating evening of discussion, particularly around the issue of nonviolent revolutionary change for the sake of moral progress, as this project neared its conclusion. Penny is a living inspiration to all those who fight injustice and inequality, and campaign for a brighter world, and her character, energy, kindness, compassion and general, shining, brilliance will inspire many a vision of a brighter world - she has certainly inspired mine.

I owe, once again, profound thanks to my friend Kostas Vlassopoulos for offering extensive (I’m not sure the word extensive does justice to the work he put in ...) comments on this manuscript. I dare say that he will still disagree with some, perhaps many, of the results, but he has improved this book in immeasurable ways. Kostas’ own work has long been an inspiration for mine, and his passion, desire and intelligence is something to which I shall always aspire. He also helped me to correct a genuine error in my theory of law in chapter three and I cannot thank him enough for that.

To Paul Cartledge, what, again, can I say? He has, once again, read more drafts of this manuscript, from its inception, in a totally different guise, 5 or so years ago, than he will care to remember, but his comments on this latest and final draft have been especially invaluable, and they have also helped to improve the final result in more ways than I can possibly express. Paul’s own work has forever served as an inspiring lesson to me as to how to make history and politics relevant and engaging. I remain, a passionate disciple and student, fully engaged ... Paul, thank you - for everything. Without you, I would not be writing these words on this page.

Gordon Edge imparted his vast wisdom and intelligence, the size of which is perhaps comparable to the universe itself (of which he knows so much), to this project and provided me with extensive comments and thoughts, which I have used unsparingly to improve the text. In doing so, as he frequently does, he went far beyond a father’s duty to his son. The final thought I can offer him is the hope that he will finally write a book himself, which, I know, will far surpass this one.

Anthony Freeman has, in the sequel, again been an incredibly patient and helpful editor. I cannot thank him enough for the extension which he gave me, which has helped me to greatly improve the text. I also cannot thank him enough for giving me the opportunity, in the first place, to put this project into print and I will remain eternally grateful for this opportunity.

To Imprint’s anonymous reader, I owe, again, a vast debt of gratitude. His or her comments, criticisms and suggestions have challenged every word, every sentence, every page, of what I have written as I have gone along,