Re: Spinoza on international government

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 16/08/01 16:20 -0700, you wrote:

> Stuart Hampshire: Spinoza - An Introduction to his Philosophical Thought:
>
>
> The argument by which Spinoza justifies obedience to civil or state
> authority as reasonable is essentially the same argument as that by which
> in this century obedience to international authority is generally
> recommended; it is the familiar argument of 'collective security', which
> is an appeal to enlightened self-interest.


<snip>

> ===========
>
> Hhhhmmmmmmm, how gender blind. Also, didn't Grotius hail from the same
> parts as Spinoza a generation or two b4 ?
>
> Ian


I am not sure what you were referring to about gender blindness. I could
not see anything politically incorrect in what I quoted. But for some
reason the lines came out as ladders. I am not sure that was a problem with
how I sent them, how you copied them, or how I received them back, but I
could not spot what you meant.

But thanks for coming back.


Why is the argument I quoted relevant to us anyway, 300+ years afer
Spinoza's death?

I suggest that we can look at the argument more objectively on its own
merits than through the
theatrical presentations of Hardt and Negri, who are having a success with
"Empire" in their lifetime, that Spinoza never courted or received in his
own, much as they admire him. Indeed he never published his own
philosphical views in his lifetime.

In terms of national politics the argument shows why the systematically
opportunist calculations of New Labour, the Neue Mittel, the New Democrats,
while initially repulsive to any ideals, may *ultimately* be more
progressive and radical in addressing, taming, and perhaps eventually
altering, existing power structures.

In terms of international politics, the argument is eloquent. Hampshire's
last edition was 1988, just as the "Communist Block" was about definitively
to crumble. Gorbachov, in his own words, deprived the USA of an enemy.

Bush is now trampling on the veneer of consensus that allowed a vast
coalition of nation states to support, out of self interest, Pax Americana.
It is no longer clear how to "ally oneself with that group of nations which
is powerful enough, if acting together, to constitute an international
authority" (Hampshire condensing Spinoza) Which group can best protect many
of the major capital cities of the world, build at sea level, from global
drowning?


We are now seeing possibly a very rapid fragmentation and opening up of
possible alliances among capitalist states that are by no means totally
inevitable. For their own economic interests they will mute the gravity of
the splits, (quite unlike the drive to military war that Lenin identified
in the imperialism of 100 years ago). But Europe is now starting to
challenge the USA for leadership of the coalition of exploiting states who
run the world. No doubt about it.

Finally the extreme pragmatic self-calculation of interest that Spinoza
invites us quietly to understand, may best also describe parallel
developments towards global *economic* convergence. The paradox of bourgois
individualism, seen early in the prosperous Netherlands, is that it invites
you to calculate the probablilities of what your fellow individuals may do.
(Indeed Spinoza's political hero, de Witt, made his fortune by devising
actuarial tables.)

This is even more the case in the era of global finance capitalism. They
are constantly calculating and recalculating the interaction of their naked
self interest, to reduce risk.

That is why capitalism prepares the ground for socialism. Yes, on a global
scale, and sooner than we could have imagined.

Chris Burford

London