Log in

View Full Version : Weak statesmen, weaker people!



hatzel
11th April 2011, 12:26
It was always only a matter of time before a Landauer fanboy like me would bring this one out, so:


A pale, nervous, sick, and weak man sits at his writing desk. He scribbles notes on a sheet of paper. He is composing a symphony. He works diligently, using all the trade secrets he has learned. When the symphony is performed, a hundred and fifty men play in the orchestra; in the third movement, there are ten timpani, fifteen anvils, and an organ; in the final movement, an eight-part chorus of five hundred people is added as well as an extra orchestra of fifes and drums. The audience is mesmerized by the enormous force and the imposing vigour.

Our statesmen and politicians – and increasingly our entire ruling class – remind us of this composer who possesses no actual power, but allows the masses to appear powerful. Our statesmen and politicians also hide their actual weakness and helplessness behind a giant orchestra willing to obey their commands. In this case the orchestra are the people in arms, the military.

The angry voices of the political parties, the complaints of the citizens and the workers, the clenched fists in the pockets of the people – none of this has to be taken seriously by the government. These actions lack any real force because they are not supported by the elements that are naturally the most radical in each people: the young men from twenty to twenty-five. These men are lined up in the regiments under the command of our inept government. They follow every order without question. It is they who help camouflage the government's true weaknesses, allowing them to remain undetected – both within our country as much as outside of it.

We socialists know how socialism, i.e., the immediate communication of true interests, has been fighting against the rule of the privileged and their fictitious politics for over one hundred years. We want to continue and strengthen this powerful historical tendency, which will lead to freedom and fairness. We want to do this by awakening the spirit and by creating different social realities. We are not concerned with state politics.

If the powers of un-spirit and violent politics at least retained enough force to create great personalities, i.e., strong politicians with vision and energy, then we might have respect for these men even if they were in the enemy's camp. We might even concede that the old powers will continue to hold onto power for some time. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the state is not based on men of strong spirit and natural power. It is increasingly based on the ignorance and passiveness of the people. This goes even for the unhappiest among them, for the proletarian masses. The masses do not yet understand that they must flee the state and replace it, that they must build an alternative. This is not only true in Germany; it is also the case in other countries.

On the one side, we have the power of the state and the powerlessness of the masses, which are divided into helpless individuals – on the other side, we have socialist organization, a society of societies, an alliance of alliances, in other words: a people. The struggle between the two sides must become real. The power of the states, the principle of government and those who represent the old order will become weaker and weaker. The entire system would vanish without a trace is the people began to constitute themselves as a people apart from the state. However, the people have not yet grasped this. They have not yet understood that the state will fulfill a certain function and remain an inevitable necessity as long as its alternative, the socialist reality, does not exist.

A table can be overturned and a window can be smashed. However, those who believe that the state is also a thing of a fetish that can be overturned or smashed are sophists and believers in the Word. The state is a social relationship; a certain way of people relating to one another. It can be destroyed by creating new social relationships; i.e., by people relating to one another differently.

The absolute monarch said: I am the state. We, who we have imprisoned ourselves in the absolute state, must realize the truth: we are the state! And we will be the state as long as we are nothing different; as long as we have not yet created the institutions necessary for a true community and a true society of human beings.

Discuss :)

hatzel
12th April 2011, 11:17
Because I refuse to see this thread die an immediate death, I'm going to shamelessly bump it. In order to make it seem slightly less shameless, though, I'm going to say something relevant...

I'd consider this essay to be building on de la Boétie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitude) (not least because I know it was :rolleyes:), and that may be something worth considering in relation to the above :)

Viet Minh
12th April 2011, 11:52
Because I refuse to see this thread die an immediate death

You only need to mention Stalin it will hit 3 pages min :lol:

Srsly though I agree with this guy based on that quotation alone but what is he actually proposing for this true society?

hatzel
12th April 2011, 16:43
You only need to mention Stalin it will hit 3 pages min :lol:

Hmm...I can't quite link Stalin in, as we're a bit before his time, but how's this for a quote to induce a heated debate:


We must look at this more closely. For we have peeled off only two layers of the acrid Marxist onion, we must cut deeper into its centre even if it brings tears to our eyes. We must further dissect the monstrosity, and I promise: there will always be a little snorting, sneezing and some laughter as we continue.

Yeah! Take that! :laugh: This was not long after referring to the 'dialectical manure of the Marxists'. Rosa would be proud! :rolleyes:


Srsly though I agree with this guy based on that quotation alone but what is he actually proposing for this true society?I'm not sure if I feel confident enough to sum up a whole philosophy in just one post, but...there's a decent article written about him over here (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/landauer/forcommunity.html), which quite nicely sums up the nature of his 'true society': communitarian anarchism. I think it gives a decent enough summary, although it admits (quote rightly) that he's been largely forgotten, except for a slight reemergence in post-anarchist (and post-left anarchist?) circles in recent years. Clearly I'm on a one-man mission to spread the word here on RevLeft, too...

danyboy27
12th April 2011, 17:19
stalin was a strong stateman.

discuss.

agnixie
12th April 2011, 18:07
It was always only a matter of time before a Landauer fanboy like me would bring this one out, so:



Discuss :)

I find the argument partially missing what the state as a form of social organization is: from an anthropological pov, the state is the ossification of social hierarchy, it's a stratified society where the strata have gone from non-existent, to personal, to hereditary.

I also find the argument based on personal strength a bit ridiculous.

RATM-Eubie
12th April 2011, 19:31
stalin was a strong stateman.

discuss.
:bored:
And also a insane madman.

Thug Lessons
12th April 2011, 20:02
Is anyone else sensing some serious fascist overtones while they read the OP?

Viet Minh
12th April 2011, 20:03
Is anyone else sensing some serious fascist overtones while they read the OP?

Nah Rabbi always acts like that! :laugh: :p

Gorilla
12th April 2011, 20:06
:bored:
And also a insane madman.
Vy. handsome moustache though.

Gorilla
12th April 2011, 20:15
It was always only a matter of time before a Landauer fanboy like me would bring this one out, so:

Discuss :)

I don't have anything useful to say about it but the one thing leaped out at me was what looks like some serious internalized anti-Semitic imagery:


A pale, nervous, sick, and weak man sits at his writing desk. He scribbles notes on a sheet of paper. He is composing a symphony. He works diligently, using all the trade secrets he has learned. When the symphony is performed, a hundred and fifty men play in the orchestra; in the third movement, there are ten timpani, fifteen anvils, and an organ; in the final movement, an eight-part chorus of five hundred people is added as well as an extra orchestra of fifes and drums. The audience is mesmerized by the enormous force and the imposing vigour.

Sickly, parasitic, manipulative, but with an uncanny charisma - Svengali, Iago, Fagin or a thousand other caricatures.

hatzel
12th April 2011, 22:56
I also find the argument based on personal strength a bit ridiculous.

What argument is this exactly? :confused: Weakness is this case isn't referring to lack of muscles, as strength isn't referring to abundant muscles. It's repeating / developing an argument put forward by de la Boétie, as linked to in my second post. As it's quite a long discourse, I'll quote a few relevant sections here:


For the present I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they, but simply, it would seem, delighted and charmed by the name of one man alone whose power they need not fear.

[...]

Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted? If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice? Of course there is in every vice inevitably some limit beyond which one cannot go. Two, possibly ten, may fear one; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth, any more than valor can be termed the effort of one individual to scale a fortress, to attack an army, or to conquer a kingdom.

[...]

Everyone knows that the fire from a little spark will increase and blaze ever higher as long as it finds wood to burn; yet without being quenched by water, but merely by finding no more fuel to feed on, it consumes itself, dies down, and is no longer a flame. Similarly, the more tyrants pillage, the more they crave, the more they ruin and destroy; the more one yields to them, and obeys them, by that much do they become mightier and more formidable, the readier to annihilate and destroy. But if not one thing is yielded to them, if, without any violence they are simply not obeyed, they become naked and undone and as nothing, just as, when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.

De la Boétie and Landauer alike are merely claiming that a single individual, a king or president, is infinitely weaker, by nature, than a nation of several million people. The same is true if we look at a parliament, with a few hundred politicians; the power lies with the masses. In a truly neutral situation, the few hundred people would not be able to exert their dominance over the masses, as true power lies with the masses due to their sheer number. Both writers point out, quite rightly, that the power of the ruling minority is directly derived from the masses. For example: the masses pay taxes, which are spent to buy weapons, and these weapons are put in the hands of the masses, to enforce the rule of that ruling minority who, in fact, do nothing except command the masses, who have consented to being their police force, army, financial supporters etc.

As de la Boétie outlines in the last paragraph I've cited, the ruling minority as we now see it, that is to say the government, would cease to exist without the continued consent and support of the masses. For Landauer, this means that we are, for all intents and purposes, the state ourselves, as the ruling minority has no power other than that we give it, as de la Boétie argued. Or, the only power it inherently has is the power of a small band of individuals, though we know that the politicians aren't the ones enforcing laws, waging wars or oppressing anybody by their own hands. This challenges the idea of the state as a tangible force above us, as a select group of individuals, when we are (necessarily) complicit in its continued existence as a collective.

The state as it currently is, even if we it consider first and foremost a hierarchical 'system' or whatever else, it is still defined, before anything else, as a means of people relating to one another. One group oppressing another is a way of people treating one another, as is the decision some of us make to lend our hands to the ruling minority, to act as its soldiers. For Landauer, it is these social relationships which define the existing state, and we are complicit in the continuation of this network of relationships, by our failure to realign ourselves outside of the existing state. If there came a time when people refused to oppress one another, that is to say, refused to treat people in an oppressive way, then the existing hierarchies would vanish without a trace. The hierarchical system that we live in is merely a result of how people interact, how some choose to oppress others, whence comes the suggestion that the state is fundamentally a social relationship, which can be overcome by creating a new social relationship.

agnixie
13th April 2011, 00:39
De la Boétie and Landauer alike are merely claiming that a single individual, a king or president, is infinitely weaker, by nature, than a nation of several million people.

I agree in general but I disagree on the particulars; La Boétie talks about ethical weakness, where Landauer gives a caricature of physical weakness. I don't agree entirely with La Boétie, but with Landauer, it veers too much into might makes right (the pamphlet, not the Nietzsche slogan idiots like to parrot)

hatzel
13th April 2011, 01:50
I agree in general but I disagree on the particulars; La Boétie talks about ethical weakness, where Landauer gives a caricature of physical weakness.

Well, considering he spent half his time saying socialism was 'a movement of spirit', 'a transformation of spirit', and talking about 'weak-willed' people, 'un-spirit' etc., I don't think it's anything to do with physical weakness at all. If anything, he ridicules other ideologies which concentrate on trying to make people feel physically powerful. In Aufruf zum Sozialismus, for instance, his main critique of Marxism was his opinion that a) it was effectively demagogic in nature, attempting to 'seduce' the working class with claims 'and now you can finally be powerful!' (which actually makes it, for him, similar to the misleading techniques of the ruling class, as mentioned in the OP); and b) it was concerned entirely with the transformation of material conditions, which he considered false socialism. I don't think it's possible to reconcile his calls for the transformation of the people's mindset / mentality / spirit / etc. with a claim that he is at all concerned with physical strength or weakness.

For this reason, I don't think this has anything to do with 'might makes right', either; although I acknowledge that, having come from a Stirnerite-Nietzschean tradition, it may be expected that he might have been influenced by the idea, this can't be seen, definitely in this case, to extend beyond individual might, in a Stirnerite form. Not least because he critiques the false 'might' of the prevailing state, and advocates a means of overcoming it which actually eschews any use of might (that is to say, attempts to violently smash the existing state) whatsoever...any sense of 'might makes right' in Landauer would exist only on an individual level, but I don't remember reading anything, even his early works, which has made such a suggestion...I'd have to double-check, though :)