David Stove's argument against radical social change
The late David Stove argued against radical social change in favor of cautious conservatism.
He believed there was a commonly-accepted argument, which he called the Columbus arguments, which goes along the lines of: innovators should be tolerated and welcomed (not derided and pushed away), since all improvements to society ultimately have come from innovators.
Stove believed this ignores all of the innovators that made things worse. His analogy is this: given a malfunctioning television, the average person is more likely to make it worse than they are to fix it or improve it.
Thus he believed change should only be welcomed incrementally, and any radical changes rejected on the grounds that they're more likely to make things worse than they are to make things better.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/david-stove/the-columbus-argument/
I think this is hard to take seriously for anyone who suffers greatly under whatever social order exists at the time. Conservatives like Stove always seem to lack a degree of empathy for those in different situations: they have something to lose, but they don't recognize that many others don't. "I don't want to suffer, so you should just keep suffering."
A better perspective would be that takes into account Stove's fears would be: when the time for revolution has come, what steps can be made to ensure things actually do get better (and don't go to shit e.g. Russia, Cambodia, China...). What are some of the things we should look out for, what are some of the things we should and should not do, etc.
He believed there was a commonly-accepted argument, which he called the Columbus arguments, which goes along the lines of: innovators should be tolerated and welcomed (not derided and pushed away), since all improvements to society ultimately have come from innovators.
Stove believed this ignores all of the innovators that made things worse. His analogy is this: given a malfunctioning television, the average person is more likely to make it worse than they are to fix it or improve it.
Thus he believed change should only be welcomed incrementally, and any radical changes rejected on the grounds that they're more likely to make things worse than they are to make things better.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/david-stove/the-columbus-argument/
I think this is hard to take seriously for anyone who suffers greatly under whatever social order exists at the time. Conservatives like Stove always seem to lack a degree of empathy for those in different situations: they have something to lose, but they don't recognize that many others don't. "I don't want to suffer, so you should just keep suffering."
A better perspective would be that takes into account Stove's fears would be: when the time for revolution has come, what steps can be made to ensure things actually do get better (and don't go to shit e.g. Russia, Cambodia, China...). What are some of the things we should look out for, what are some of the things we should and should not do, etc.
Comments (22)
Communism bad, therefore Russia's communist revolution bad, therefore Tsarist Russia less bad? Russia was already shit. That's why they had a revolution. France also had a socialist revolution, for the same reason.
I never understood either of these positions. So conservatism is conserving what great thing really? All I see is a maintaining shit so you can produce and consume more to maintain shit again.
And "innovators" (leftists/liberals/progressives?). What are they innovating? Other ways to distribute the pie for maintaining shit so you can produce and consume more to maintain shit again.
Until these political philosophers go existential, they are all fucked.
:up:
I think a certain degree of mythology has to be embedded in a political movement for it to be successful. Conservatism wishes to maintain or bring back a lost world where things were better (they weren't). Socialism, anarchism and other leftist trads want to bring about a new utopia where things are better (they won't be, or at least they won't be utopian).
Are there any political philosophies you like that include this existential aspect?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Yeah that's what I was wondering too.
Stove's analogy of the malfunctioning television falls apart when you consider that nobody wants a malfunctioning television that they can't fix. As I see it this is exactly what radical politics is about - completely doing away with whatever system is in place. It's not trying to fix it, it's trying to get rid of it.
And, ya know, if conservative reactionaries would stop trying to undermine things (re: Killing Hope), leftist politics might be given the fair chance it deserves.
Revolutions and radical changes come about because existing conditions have created unbearable stress in the system. Something has to give, and once it does, like a bridge subjected to too many stresses, it will collapse -- regardless of what conservatives, liberals, reactionaries, or revolutionaries prefer.
Might conditions get worse? Conditions will almost certainly get worse, no matter what BECAUSE in the long run, things fall apart. Like Keynes said, "in the long run we are all dead."
If you don't want a revolution in which once lovely societies become desperate shit holes, then the best policy is a forward thinking commitment to sustainable (and significant) change. In other words, if you don't want a revolution, then get ahead of the growing stresses and deterioration. Fix the damn bridge now so it doesn't collapse, and start building its replacement.
Really good, thanks BC.
You can make an argument that Marxism has an existential aspect. Because its based on Hegel's dialectic, there is some sort of end-phase to history and the economy. However, this end-goal doesn't change the existential condition. Even if this utopian vision of a classless, fully worker-led, robot-powered economy were to take place, this doesn't change the human condition (necessary harm), nor even contingent harms that characterize it.
Certainly, the supply-demand models of Smithian capitalism seem like a mindless hive of producing and consuming, with not much end goal in mind except larger amounts of specialization, products, and services that inflate and deflate as markets equilibrate. There is no reason for anything, just "this is what happens when supply meets demand".
It can be argued that on the political side, liberal democracies are based on principles of Enlightenment, specifically people like John Locke where supposedly, protecting rights dictate political framework. So do rights provide an existential outline? Jefferson's "Life, liberty, happiness.." is that some sort of existential statement of what our lives entail or should strive for?
I think most of these political and economic philosophies fall flat in addressing our existential situation. Rather, they are just frameworks for how institutions should operate. Existential questions address things like whether it is worth existing at all, why we do anything at any particular moment when we can do another thing, what is the point of doing anything while being a self-aware being, the underlying motivations- things like survival, comfort, and entertainment, deprivation of needs/wants, the circularity of doing the same thing everyday to stay alive and occupied, the vicissitudes of daily life, the "dealing with" of being a self-aware being that does one task after another, suffering, emotional and physical pain.
One can argue that antinatalism can be a sort of existential political philosophy, as it questions the whole enterprise of why we exist in the first place. It is the opposite of minutia-mongering. The engineer-mathematician, the accountant, etc. are the opposite of existential matters. One is focused on the "why" of doing anything in the first place- the big picture. The other is not even recognizing this, ignoring it, to focus on details, but affords no reasons for doing this in the first place. Political-economic discourse shuts out existential discourse, perhaps because it doesn't want to look behind the curtain. It wants to assume that things need to move forward, and go from there, rather than questioning all of it.
No one has ever made this argument, as far as I’m aware. Conservatives are skeptical of human reason and believe a moderate reform is far better for everyone than radical revolutionary change. They believe that we ought not to sacrifice present society on the whims of a few revolutionaries. It actually sounds like they have more empathy than the revolutionary types.
There's a big difference between pushing for changes within current institutions, and wanting to dismantle them in favor of new ones, which often means violent revolution or civil war. Some have lead to better outcomes, but often enough they do not.
Who gets to be in charge of the rebuild after everything is torn down? There's no guarantee it won't be someone authoritarian, supported by followers who won't tolerate dissent. There's also no guarantee that disruption of the economy doesn't lead to starvation. And if there is no clear victor, conflicts can stretch on for decades. There are plenty of historical examples to draw from along with current ones. A few are the stuff of nightmares. Hopefully, nobody wants a repeat of Pol Pot.
It sounds like Stove is in favor of the first. So that would mean things like police reform, reparations, disability rights, increased minimum wage, and better treatment for farm animals. Instead of tearing it all down in hopes that the victors are capable of making something better, assuming they even want to, depending on who's victorious.
Everyone has something to lose as long as they are alive. Wars have collateral damage, and they can disrupt food supplies. They can also result in even more oppression. If I'm homeless, the situation isn't made better by gun fire in the streets and stores being bombed.
I wonder what that makes Frank Herbert. His Dune saga has the oppressed become the oppressors as they wage a holy war. But it was setup by the oppressors which backfired on them. He said he wrote the Dune Saga as a warning against charismatic leaders. He also has the main protagonist in book four talk about how revolutionaries are easy to convert to aristocrats, because they seek power.
Mind you, as my mother used to say, quoting some long forgotten play or something. "A nice cup of tea is always nice."
Can you think of any examples of total revolution; where existing institutions are not merely co-opted and rearranged, but completely done away with by starting from scratch?
Khmer Rouge's cultural revolution:
[quote=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pol-pot-overthrown]As the new ruler of Cambodia, Pol Pot set about transforming the country into his vision of an agrarian utopia. The cities were evacuated, factories and schools were closed, and currency and private property was abolished. Anyone believed to be an intellectual, such as someone who spoke a foreign language, was immediately killed. Skilled workers were also killed, in addition to anyone caught in possession of eyeglasses, a wristwatch, or any other modern technology. In forced marches punctuated with atrocities from the Khmer Rouge, the millions who failed to escape Cambodia were herded onto rural collective farms.[/quote]
It only cost about 2 million lives or 25% of the population of Cambodia. Of course that's one of the worst case scenarios, but it is a cautionary tale against ideological purity driving revolution.