Chairman Mao and the Cosmopirates

When I’ve gotten a little more Egypt out of my system, and handled some other matters, I want to think a little harder about philosophy of world history and what I take to be an emerging consensus about America’s evolving international role – in short, from global “hyperpower” to mere Great Power among others.

Such a course of development was already envisioned long ago. Carl Schmitt traced the trajectory, especially in terms of the history of international law, in his work on The Nomos of the Earth, which he began to write during World War II, in Germany. His Theory of the Partisan, a book-length lecture from 1962, follows up Nomos from a particular military-historical perspective that anticipates later writing on so-called 4th Generation Warfare and the War on Terror.

It is with some evident glee that, near the end of Theory of the Partisan, Schmitt locates support for his thinking from what might seem to be an unexpected quarter. He notes that Mao Tse-Tung, possibly as a result of a long experience as an actual practitioner of “telluric” (loosely, homeland-based) defensive warfare, exhibited much greater feeling than the more abstract Lenin, among others, for the limits of revolution and conquest. In the poem “Kunlun,” named for a mythical mountain that rises far above the Earth, Mao offers what Schmitt characterizes as a “pluralistic image”:

If I could stand above the heavens,
I would draw my sword
And cut you in three parts:
One piece for Europe,
One piece for America,
One piece left for China.
Then peace would rule the world.

Schmitt’s way of expressing a similar thought is to refer to a world divided into a “plurality of Grossräumen – [large spatial-political spheres]… rationally balanced internally and in relation to each other.”

We might question if three is the right number of “pieces,” or if Mao’s trio is the right trio. We might also wonder whether, lacking Mao’s sword, we can expect the actual setting of boundaries to develop peacefully or even successfully at all. For Orwell in 1984, a similar arrangement was a recipe for perpetual war, or so, at least, the propaganda movies seemed to say. We can perhaps imagine that at least until the Three or more are set, and on some level continuously, there will still be a role for the One, both a vision of One World or One Humanity, and some One willing to believe in and therefore defend it. Yet what I do not think we can deny is the relevance of Schmitt’s and the Chairman’s explorations to the current human predicament, and to shifts or possible shifts in the American self-conception in particular.

As Schmitt closes Theory, which I must emphasize is composed on a high scholarly level and written in apparent complete sobriety, he ventures into even broader speculation. He thinks his way into a future in which the famous astronauts and cosmonauts of his day have been replaced by “cosmopirates and cosmopartisans,” some of them equipped with weapons of mass destruction. 50 years later, it seems that that future, if it is to come at all, may still take a good while to develop. Instead, we have seen a somewhat unanticipated diversion of human energy into the so-called Third Environment or virtual reality rather than into outer space, conjuring an internetworked unity of humanity that has also meant new orders of re-organization and re-orientation, and modes of warfare (and re-disorganization and re-disorientation), for a new global nomos.


WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins