Based on preliminary discussion, there a couple of controversial issues relating to Tolstoy; patriotism vs. nationalism and/or anarchism vs. socialism that it might be helpful to discuss beforehand, just by way of clearing the air for the book review, so to speak, but also to provide a backdrop of discussion about some of the political implications of Tolstoy's work.
I think the first one, patriotism vs. nationalism, reduces to a mere semantical argument. I have gone back and reviewed some of Tolstoy's thinking about patriotism, and I realize that his interpretation of it is as something always virulent, always implying a partiality or prejudice for one's country or countrymen over others. Indeed, he almost uses the term as if it equated to chauvinism. This may be a question of the translation of his Russian into English, or it may be that these distinctions were not so neatly drawn in his day. As I see it, Tolstoy's use of the term "patriotism" is roughly equivalent to our modern term "nationalism," and so, in the sense that Tolstoy was using the term, I have no quarrel with Matthew's injunction on his blog that we all seek to dispense with it, as an encumbrance to the higher law of love. But I also want to add that there are certain patriotic themes, using this term in its contemporary sense (i.e., in contradistinction to nationalism and national chauvinism) that I would not like to dispense with. For example, loyalty to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, association, religion, etc. Loyalty to the efforts of our founding fathers (not all of them, alas) to avoid a central banking system such as England's, but which worldly power, after several periods of victory and defeat, enshrined itself into law with the passage of the Federal Reserve act on 23 December 1913, paving the way for the massive finance of WWI. The theme of limited and divided federal powers.
I doubt that Tolstoy would disagree with the merit of these ideas, loyalty to which I consider patriotic in the highest sense of the world. What he would likely argue is that the kind of "patriotism" he reproaches is the kind that, under the name of patriotism, tries to force its "better" way on another country, as the United States is currently supposed to be doing (but actually failing to do) in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the American "democratic" way to the great unwashed, etc. The Nazis also believed solidly in the superiority of their system, and sought to impose it by force on many of their neighbors, as did the USSR. The Russia against patriotism for which Tolstoy courageously inveighed was nicknamed by the rest of the "civilized" world "The Prisonhouse of Nations." So the patriotism in question is a kind of perfervid nationalism which manifests as a national hubris, which then overflows it banks and forcibly deluges its neighbors. Russia's ruler was not without purpose called the Czar, that is, Caesar. A Caesar is by definition an imperial ruler. The embers of the old Roman Empire smolder yet.
I think we can consider this item off the table, unless you have further to argue Matthew. But as to the other question, the anarchism vs. socialism, or to be more precise, the Christian Anarchism vs. Christian Socialism, I think we are looking at a very long discussion. I think it will be a productive dialogue that I am happy to return to from time to time as we go along, so I would like to leave it open. Both approaches must have their foundations (I think we can agree) in Christian nonresistance and in Christian social justice. How best to effect this latter is debatable, nor do I consider that Tolstoy expended much effort in working out such particulars, though I am certainly open to argument on that point if you have one. Rather, it is Tolstoy's dogged and inspired insisted that no system (or "unsystem") can take the place of individual moral responsibility that enriches both perspectives. For the time being, I only wish to recognize (and trust you will agree) that both Christian Socialists and Christian Anarchists have a proper claim on Tolstoy's work. I hope this will become elucidated in the course of our review of What I Believe.
Peace,
Ken
9 October 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment