Around the immensely vast round table sit eight people. There is the Anarchist,who leans precariously on the back of his chair, feet on the table, smoking contently with his pipe. Niccolo Machiavelli who chats with philosopher Thomas Hobbes under a breath of hushed confidence, and the legendary Sun Tzu besides them ponders alone in contemplation. Across the table, Mohandas Gandhi lectures an audience of John Stuart Mill and Margaret Mead. Lastly there is Micheal Foucault who sits analyzing the crowd before him with amused and keen eyes. The Anarchist stirs and speaks.
L’Anarchist: My good guests, shall we begin?
A moment passes and the room settles.
L’Anarchist: Thank you. I have gathered us that we may discuss the concepts of war, peace, and power. I invite you to share your opinions, according to your expertise on the matters at hand. For now, a good place for us to start would be in defining our terms. So first, let us examine the concept of power: Tell me, what is power?
Foucault: One could say that power is rooted in knowledge. Knowledge structures define the way a person thinks, and how a person thinks determines how he or she uses one’s power. It can be said that the nature of power is in knowledge.
Machiavelli: Power is in knowledge you say. Where then is the power of the educated man, when he cowers for his life under the sword of the ignorant might? No amount of intelligence, reason, nor debate can make a man more powerful when met toe to toe with sword, spear, and shield. Spill the blood of a man, and he will fall. No matter how knowledgeable he is. True power resides in force.
L’Anarchist: Machiavelli, it is true that the force of arms can destroy the physical body of man, but without intelligence, power would be applied without utility and hence be useless. Still, however, though knowledge increases the utility of power, it is not the essence of power, but rather, knowledge is more like a catalyst for the power’s utility. To me power is simply the capacity to create change.
For the purpose of our discussion, are there any objections to this definition of power?
A moment of silence
L’Anarchist: Good. Now that we have defined power, let us turn our inquiries onto the use of power with a violent nature. Tell me, what do you think of war?
Mead: War is an invention. Just like wearing cloths or cooking food.
Hobbes: No Mead, war is deeper that. For it is such that in the natural condition of man, where there is no centralized power to instill order, it war of all against all. It is all within the power of the individual to do violence for survival, for gaining one’s desires, or even simply for reputation. Hence it be that in a state of decentralized power, where there is no established law, force and fraud are two cardinal virtues.
Machiavelli: Why yes Hobbes, and it is out of that chaos that the principality arises. The government that rises to unite the people and give order to the land.
Mead:Then what of the Eskimo people who know no war? A new comer may have to fight the strongest in the tribe to prove his bravery, but the Eskimo do not wage war against another. It is untrue, this war of all against all. I do not think people naturally live in chaos, nor do they always need some state or king to govern them. They can already coexist together in peace.
Hobbes: And if the Eskimo were attacked by a warring horde? Would they know war then?
Mead: Yes… then they would…. War is like any other invention. When it is introduced to a people, it tends to persist. If something like that happened, to survive, the Eskimo would need to adapt and adopt war strategies. When they are confronted with war, they are left with no choice.
L’Anarchist: In reality, there will always be men and women who choose to do violence onto others for their own gain. One must never deny the existence of such violence in nature, no matter how disagreeable, for when one is faced with violence, one must either flee, overcome, or be overwhelmed. So, we see the importance of understanding power of a violent nature. Let us now stare straight into the heart of the darkness which we call War to understand the forces which sustain it. That we may stand our ground and overcome the violence which may be done to us, let me now ask you: How is power gained in war? How is power lost? How is power maintained? Who is powerful?
Sun-Tzu: The study of military assessment is the grounds of life or death for the nation. It is of greatest importance to understand this. You want to know who is powerful in war? Well, I shall ask you: Who has the better leadership? Which leader is better able to harmonize the will of the people with the will of the leadership? Whose army is more disciplined? More organized? Better equipped? Better trained? Which leader is more competent? Who better understand the environment in which war shall be fought?
Machiavelli: Enlightening questions Sun-Tzu. It is as you say. In action, constant discipline and preparedness of soldiers is of up most importance to the prince. Accustoming one’s soldiers to hardship and discipline is key. The study of dominance, which is the unflinching influence over men, whether born of fear or love, is another prime subject for the prince’s study. By good fortune, force of arms, or special ability does the prince acquire power, but in constant preparation, and in using the gift of time and foresight, power is maintained.
Sun-Tzu: Victory in war is assured by endless adaptions. The great leader is one who is able to adapt his forces to his opponents in a way which will guarantee him victory. Important too, is the art of deception. No matter their numbers compared to yours, they can be subdued by orthodox and unorthodox methods. Let them think you are big, when you are small. Far, when you are near. Weak, when you are strong. And in their confusion, strike where they are sure to fall. The rules of war are simple. Measure. Assess. Calculate. Compare. Victory.
L’Anarchist: I see. Constant preparation, adaptation, and deception. Power in war is secured by constantly assessing your strategic options and adapting your forces such that the power you possess has most utility at all times. Furthermore with deception, one taints the enemy’s knowledge and gains power over the strategic choices of the enemy.
Sun-Tzu: Knowing this however, it is necessary to know the limitations of violence. Inept is the leader who only knows of violence as the means to obtain one’s goals. The best way to accomplish one’s goal is without the use of war and violence, for war is to the detriment of all involved. No nation can benefit from prolonged warfare.
Gandhi: Sun-Tzu, it relieves me to hear you say that war is not always the answer. There are much better ways to acquire influence over the affairs on men then by force of arms. Influence born from fear is always unwise. The means you employ when dealing with people will define the end result. The relationship is inseparable, like a seed and the plant from which it grows.
Machiavelli: What do you mean? Speak not in puzzles.
Gandhi: A robber comes into your house and robs you. Depending on the circumstances, you could overpower and cast him out, or you could succumb to the theft of your possessions. If you overpower the thief with violence, would he not go to his brother robbers and decrying the injustice done to him by your violent hand? And in rallying his brother robbers, would they not attack you together? And if you commission the help of your neighbors to your defense, saying you must seek justice for righteousness, already you bring war and violence to the lives of the friends and neighbors who will support you. But if you had lain your house open, unlocked, and welcoming, and the robber will still take everything from you. But he is puzzled. So he inquires about you and find that you are a kind, loving man. In his guilt, he returns the stolen goods and becomes a servant for you. Then, you will find for him honorable and worthy employment. You see, even in the most drastic situations, the means one uses when dealing with people will always define the ends.
L’Anarchist: It seems as you say Gandhi, that the means do define the ends, but I am not fully content with this. I cannot be idle and watch while violence is done to me or my people.
John Stuart Mill: No man or state has the right to interfere with the liberty of any individual with the exception of self protection. The only reason violence may done onto another is to prevent the violent individual from bringing harm to others. For all other matters the individual has absolute sovereignty over his or her own affairs.
L’Anarchist: That sounds very reasonable Mill. It is something I can accept. But, I shall not react violently if the harms incurred from my violent reaction will outweigh the benefits reaped from negating the existing violence. In short, violence only as a reaction, and only if a greater peace for all involved will ensue. Setting violence and war aside, tell me Gandhi, how does power work in times of peace?
Gandhi: The love force. The force which holds the universe together works within you and I also. It is the force which allows us to deal with each other in harmony. A more familiar, but less accurate, manifestation of the love force is passive resistance.
L’Anarchist: Could you give an example of the love force or passive resistance? I am not sure I fully grasp the concept.
Gandhi: There are two ways to petition. With violence, and without. The former would say: “If you do not give us what we want, we will hurt you”. The latter would say: “If you do not concede to our demands…we shall not deal with you”. It is the latter, that is the example of love force in action. ii
L’Anarchist: The concept of the love-force seems very abstract to me, yet it sounds a deep tone within. It is familiar with my own philosophy: that mutual respect and trust among men is crucial for peace. An example of this in play would be by gaining influence with other men and women through mutual respect, to mutual benefit, and in mutual consent, rather then by fear or violence. For those who are skeptical Gandhi, what evidence is there that your love force actually exists?
Gandhi: Why, by our existence today. There is a proverb that rings true to me. It is that those who take the sword shall perish by the sword. Violence shall greet violence. If we are all violent and warring by nature, human kind would have ended as a species a long time ago. The natural state of man is not war, as Hobbes says. It is peace, and peace is retained by the love force. Our history as we know it is a record of the wars and conflicts of the world. All other times, is peace.
L’Anarchist: I’m sorry, but I still do understand your example.
Gandhi: Two brothers quarrel, the love force acts, and one repents. The brothers make peace and begin to live together again, nobody notices this. Another two brothers quarrel, and they result in violence and war. Soon, the whole community will take note of this, and it will probably go down in history. And so, history is a recording of the interruptions of the love-force. And the love force, being natural, proceeds unnoticed.
L’Anarchist: Haha, if you put it that way, yes. I will not deny that there is something like the love force which exists and gives stability to the people, for it is in my opinion that peace is a social equilibrium, and violence is a force which disrupts the stability of a community.
Well, my good guests, it has been quite the discussion. We’ve examined the concept of power, which is the ability to create change. We have seen that in nature there is violence, which breaks peace. And we saw that there is a need for the study of war. Hence, we explored various ways in which one secures power of a violent nature: In quick adaptation, constant preparation, strategic assessments, deception, and the strength of arms.
As I stated before, it would be folly to ignore that harsh realities of violence in this world. But that does not mean I agree, that it is in man’s nature to wage war against all other. Nor do I necessarily agree that it in man’s nature to love another unconditionally. Rather, I believe that within each of us, living together, is an violent creature capable of incalculable hate and an benevolent being willing to unbounded kindness. Each of us posses the capability to bring great sorrow or joy to the world we live in, and it is the choices we make that define our individual nature. I honor more, the benevolence within, which cries for peace, and overwhelms my violent desires for war; but I neglect never, these senses of violence, which warns me of threats arising and of violence to come. It so is that there are the malicious who are willing to do violence onto us for their own personal gain. But I am not one would remain idle. I would react, with full utility in my force, to dismember the means of those who harbor violence towards me or the ones I value. But not recklessly, for one must refrain from reacting violently if more harm then good for all involved will result from the violence of one’s reaction.
I am often spurred to say that as a rule violence must never be initiated on the non violent, for violence is a the behavior that forces people away from the social equilibrium which is peace.
In lieu of violence, peace is maintained by fostering mutual respect and trust among the men and women of Earth. With peace we as people can cooperate, harmonize our efforts, and together bring forth greater utility from our efforts by working together. In short, it is more profitable to be in peace with your neighbors then in war.
As we depart, I thank you, my good guests, for your time and dedication to your work and philosophies. Much of humanity’s precious knowledge has been built upon it. Salutations!
End of discussion.
