After WW1 the author of The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler, wrote the little book Preussentum und Sozialismus (Prussianity and Socialism). This book is strongly colored by German nationalism, but nevertheless contains interesting points. According to Spengler the end-fight for final hegemony in late modernities in each civilization or high culture involves a choice through fight and competition between two political modes. These modes are embodied as states and often also formulated as philosophies and ideologies. They have characterized the civilization for centuries under different names and were and are represented by different countries. In the Western modernity around 1920 Spengler talked about Anglo-Saxon Capitalism vs Prussian Socialism. Socialism is here explicitly not understood as in Marxist terms, but is a term for a society where the efforts of the members including that of the rulers serve the society as a whole. The success of this society is the driving goal. This as opposed to Capitalism where the will to wealth of every individual in unregulated competition is the driving force.
Spengler follows these and other basic political modes through Western history and traced them back 1000 years. Comparable phenomena have been seen in all civilizations. Several state models or rather practices existed throughout their history. Sometimes formulated as a philosophy, but not always.
Spengler distinguishes between 1) anarchic modes which in the West are exemplified in France and in Renaissance Italy, and 2) organized modes like in Spain in its colonial time, in England and in Prussia. Each general mode can come in different specific versions. Spengler assumes that only states under organized modes are fit to fight for the final hegemony over a civilization.
I would here like to enlarge and generalize this basic idea by Spengler to fit a world where not only Europe takes part, a world where Hitler has destroyed Prussia.
The state forms in a civilization may be generalized into three types no matter their concrete names. They represent a hierarchy of increasing state control and discipline and at the same time one of decreasing personal freedom.
1)) Anarchic
What is covered by this term is in general a political mode with limited long term planning and stability over time. There can very well be a level of organization, but this is in practical terms not always respected and it is always subject to change through revolutions or new constitutions. France since 1789 is a good example. From the beginning of the Great Revolution it has had 10 new political shapes, five monarchies and five republics. As comparison England has only had two major shifts for an even longer period: the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and the present rapid decline. Present days America is another example of the anarchic mode. In the extreme version this mode is utterly chaotic. The late Roman republic is an example of this. The United States could presently be heading the same way. Generally, the society imagined by Adam Smith, undisturbed Capitalism is in the anarchic mode.
2)) Organized
The opposite is the political modes characterized by stable lasting organization, strategic long term planning and concern for the functioning of the whole country. Present Germany is a good example. Old Egypt is another. Clearly, many societies are mixtures of the mentioned two modes. Well organized countries may on the economic level be market-oriented in such an extent that their economics function in anarchic ways with little concern for the poor. The United Kingdom through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is an example of this.
3)) Legalist
At the extreme end of the organized political modes we have the harshly disciplined societies. The anarchic and the organized modes exist in all civilizations. Legalism is only seen in some cases. It exists in certain civilizations with especially brutal end-fights like Old Mesopotamia and Old China. The mode is not simply equivalent to dictatorship, but rather means that almost all parts of society and almost all individuals are enrolled as if they were soldiers with only one purpose: serve the state. Old Sparta, the Aztecs and several countries in war condition in the twentieth century are examples. Applied to old China (before 221 BC) the three modes are represented by the anarchic southern (“Taoist”) state Chu, the organized northeastern (“Confucian”) state Qi and the legalist northwestern state Qin.
Typically one political mode wins the end-fight and establishes a universal empire ruled by a figure which is de facto emperor despite a possible republican title. Most often it is the most disciplined state which wins. More controlled states will win over less controlled. Legalist modes become relevant when the competing powers are strong and well-organized. An even more disciplined mode is then introduced to defeat them.
Also in the universal empire when established, a political mode will become dominant. It can be, but is not necessarily the same as the one which won the empire.
In old China Legalism won, but Confucianism became lasting in the empire.
In old India the aggressive Maurya state won, but under Emperor Ashoka peace-loving Buddhism became state philosophy.
Like in these examples we often see that the philosophy which dominates the universal state after the victorious first emperor is a milder one than the often harsh mode, which won the world or prepared the ground. In old China the legalist state of Qin conquered the rest, but its extreme suppression and anti-cultural policies made it end in insurrections leading to the Han Dynasty. Legalism was now replaced by a Confucianism adapted to an empire.
The second Mesopotamian civilization is another interesting case. Here too we see three systems or in this case unnamed philosophies. The more anarchic around Babylon was defeated by the extremely well-organized suppressing “Legalist” state of Assyria, corresponding to Qin. But in this case this state was overrun by insurrection from the oppressed states, Media and Babylonia BEFORE the first emperor. Still, Assyria had prepared the ground for him. He came in the form of Cyrus the Great. Like with Confucianism he represented a third philosophy or rather state form milder than the Assyrian.
Rome is an opposite example. The Republic started as disciplined and Stoic. It degenerated into anarchy and chaos in the late republic. Nevertheless it conquered the countries of the Western world, but only because of the weakness and even more chaotic situation of these Hellenist states. Rome could afford to degenerate into chaos. After the civil wars when the world west of the Parthian empire had been won, the emperors, especially after Nero again turned to the goal of the common good. The anarchic mode could not assure this. The empire again became Stoic and organized.
From these examples we see that the philosophy which come to dominate in the universal state is often a version of the organized mode, a version which has a concern for the common wealth of the whole empire.
Of course also single countries can shift from one mode to another. In the development in modernities we often see a movement to more chaos like Macedonia after Alexander the Great. States can also through deliberate politics make themselves more disciplined like the states in Northern China in the old Chinese modernity. The mentioned legalism in Qin is a prominent example.
Present days United Kingdom is a modern example of a shift between modes. For centuries it was an organised admirably stable constitutional monarchy where rule alternated between Tories and Whigs, later Labour. Now the British not least under the pressure of Brexit are descending into chaos.
In the West for Spengler before the Nazis the opposing political systems were two different versions of the organized mode. They were represented by the countries Prussian Germany and the United Kingdom. The first being organized “socialist”, the other organized Capitalist individualistic. Spengler viewed England and America partly as a whole sharing this last mode. Obviously the United Sates has replaced the UK as a global competitor. It is clear that since then both countries gradually have turned more anarchic. Germany has become pacified through the Third Reich and its defeat. But the country has since WW2 still been remarkably organized and stable. It has tried to shape the EU in the same manner, but unfortunately in vain. The specific political mode of the United States is anarchic Capitalism turning chaotic.
The role as organized global player competing with the Anglo-Saxons has been taken over by first the Soviet Union, now China. The specific mode of this last country is an interesting mixture of an organized state and a capitalism which is partly anarchic and partly intertwined with the organized political system. Even though China is thoroughly Westernized, Confucianism still plays a role as ingrown political traditions. This philosophy is an important basis for the well-organized mode. We can thus view the Chinese model as a combination of Socialism with Confucianism, “Confu-socialism”. Obviously it is more stable than anarchic Capitalism degenerating into chaos.
As described in the previous two posts the United States now taking over its sphere is in the same chaotic mode as the Roman Republic in their corresponding phase of late modernity. But as often said, unlike Rome the Americans do have strong competitors. Therefore strictly spoken they can not afford this chaotic political mode if they want to win all of the world. Normally a country in an anarchic mode should lose to a power in a more disciplined well organized mode i.e. China. But because of the enormous military force of the United States and because all-out war would lead to the annihilation of humankind, the World will not be united this time. Instead as said in the earlier posts on the future shape of the world, there will be more than one universal empires in our civilization.
Of these two will be major, one under American control and the other under Chinese. Both will probably in the end adopt a version of the organized mode, a moderately disciplined concern for the common good of the whole. That is where we are heading within the next century.
Globalization and multinational cooperation seemed to be the straight path to this goal as described by Angela Merkel in her brilliant speech at Harvard University in May 2019. But unfortunately it now emerges that since 2016 we are on a digression away from this path. We have some decades of conflict before us. But these reverse steps initiated by Trump and his type everywhere will be a passing digression.
Labor division is typical in the universal empires. Different parts of the empire make different products. Through globalization this was already becoming a fact. In the name of nationalism the present US president is working to reduce this labor division, but in the end labor division will prevail. It remains to be seen whether it will cover the whole world, or the empires as wholes will be self-sufficient and only have their own internal labor division between their parts. Present US trade sanctions looks almost as an attempt to divide the world in two economic spheres isolated from each other. “ We don’t need China”. Obviously a such divorce implemented now when all parts of the world are already largely interwoven will be extremely damaging.
Still international organization and labor division will prevail, either for the whole world or within each of the resulting empires. But for now the digression of perhaps 7-10 decades is a disaster. The political instability and fight for hegemony can lead to immense suffering through civil wars, Middle Eastern wars, proxy wars, cyber warfare or trade wars. America may become handicapped by internal polarization in its wish for total hegemony, but because of its dominance and immense power in terms of military, technology and not least the dollar, it can cause immense damage. The present US trade war against China is clearly by some American politicians seen as a preemptive strike to finish off China before it gets even stronger, this no matter the cost for world economics, US companies and US consumers. But the trend toward irresponsible decisions and escalations is general in the world of today.
And what makes things even worse is the timing between the need to control man-made climate change and the emergence of populist chaotic politics. Climate change will destroy human habitats and thereby cause conflicts and wars over resources. They will often be local, but will no doubt be used as proxy-conflicts by the big powers. This adds to the conflict potential we were already entering because of the political decline and the fight for hegemony. We have seen an example of the effects of ecological disaster in the beginning of the Mayan modernity, where it led to terrible wars, the collapse of the classical era and the death or exodus of large populations. Then it was millions, now it may be billions. By then matters should be clear for even the Trumps and Bolsonaros. The coming universal states will do their utmost to secure the habitats.
Toynbee hoped that it could be avoided, but it now looks as if the Western civilization is heading for the same destiny as our predecessors. Nevertheless, our decisions will affect our path. The digression away from the path toward concern for the whole is not a law, but the result of decisions. Such decisions can be reversed or mitigated or be made less all-inclusive.
The rulers of the universal empires constantly have had to deal with and prevent famine and natural disasters. This through things like distributing resources, building irrigation canals, regulating rivers with dams, introducing new crops and collecting surpluses to be used under famines. Of course both to prevent starvation and thereby to avoid resulting insurrections. As opposed to leaders only focusing on their own country and on winning the next elections, our future Augustus or Ashoka and their successors in addition to such measures will also do their utmost to limit climate change, not least by saving the rainforests if anything of them will be left.
