Hegel on War

This talk, entitled "Hegel's Failure to Understand Hegel's Position on War," takes up a Hegelian perspective to criticize Hegel's own insistence on the necessity of war for the sake of making people aware of the universal. The focus on the enemy in war actually has the effect of obfuscating universality beneath the patina of nation. War hides the way that the subject must discover itself in absolute otherness, which is the basis of Hegel's thinking.

[@theoak9390]

Lucky day when you bring something new!

[@alaspooryorick9946]

The Nation vs State point is really interesting too. I've been reading about the history of the national question in the USSR, and the shifts around the particularity of Russian nationalism in the early 40s make this tension really evident. Thanks mate!

[@grs7epqt779]

Great! Thank you 🎉

[@totonow6955]

I'm coming back to listen to this now after October 7, 2023. Indeed a deep damage to speculation.. Yet now this is war without war in its lack of two sides. We aren't being philosophical enough indeed.

[@mythospraxis6764]

Many thanks for this Todd! Isn't Žižek's point about the lack of guarantees and the internal failure of every social order, also, that there's no guarantee that any given disharmonious social order will collapse? American school shootings come to mind as an example. Like, it's not just a problem for relatively secure social structures we desire to conserve that might face conflict; it's also a problem in the inverse, for insecure ones that seem to possess no guarantee they will end. Which underscores the significance of perversion in Žižek's ideological criticism. Maybe I'm reading this into him, but I think he leaves a space for the point.

[@toddmcgowan8233]

That seems convincing to me. I think that he would say no guarantees on either side.

[@auroraorha]

Awesome ❤

[@nightoftheworld]

5:56 this is why having a draft was bad for selling modern wars like Vietnam because a wider range of citizenry were called up to participate and witness the brutality/senselessness of it all-rather than a more quiet/invisible volunteer or contract based military like the War on Terror was.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

The majority of the soldiers who went to Vietnam were volunteers/professional army, not conscripts. About 70% actually.

[@nightoftheworld]

@hansfrankfurter2903 ok still 100% more than WOT, according to American Legion 25% (648,500) were drafted for Vietnam.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

25% wouldn't have stopped the war form happening. @@nightoftheworld

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

@@nightoftheworld My point is that the draft had nothing to do with Vietnam, most ppl who went 75% went because they believed the propaganda. The war was lost only when the losses became too high 50k+ and the home front lost morale. It had little to do with soldiers having a road to Damascus moment. Most soldiers either witnessed or participated in unspeakable atrocities, but justified it to themselves as "necessary for a greater cause".

[@nightoftheworld]

@@hansfrankfurter2903 Yes there were believers for sure, and people will justify the atrocities they commit however-but my point is that the draft for Vietnam ensured that the public was highly engaged with the war, rather than having a massive disconnect between volunteer professional service members/general public like today. We need a hybrid system it seems-unless we want to be naive and say no more wars will ever be fought. The issue is that an all volunteer force, though it lowers discipline problems and increases professionalism, has created a military caste system that now appears more like a multi-generational family business than an organization that represents the actual makeup of our democratic republic. The amplified public interest from partial conscription would increase public engagement and likely help to prevent open-ended wars led by unaccountable senior leaders like we Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a paradox because conscription is less popular than jury duty, but I think it would help bring fresh air into the privatization of the force-it would help to broaden the democratic voice concerning war rather than isolating it only to demographics who are drawn only by professionalism or poverty into service.

[@maischkrane1759]

Great insights !. Thank you !. Just if I may ,I have some doubts about the public service as an alternative to war .. The war( at least the just self-defense war ) compels me as a citizen to take up the arms because the enemy threatens to subjugate my family , to exploit the resources of my country and undermine my national identity . So the war becomes the necessity for me I could not avoid. (Lenin concluded the treaty of Brest- litovsk with the Germans but later the Bolsheviks still had to fight the white guards ,the interventions of the British, the Americans ,the French and the Japanese .It was still necessary to fight in the war under Lenin ,even though it was not the fight on behalf of Capitalism .) Public service on the other hand would not be perceived as such a necessity ,I think. Some people might volunteer for it and some might not and it means we still don't avoid particularization here unless of course this public service is compulsory for everybody If it is compulsory for everyone than there might still be those who would rebel against it which could potentially lead to a civil war. Maybe I am wrong but I just could not see any alternative to War or a huge national disaster ( the imminent one , not abstract environmental Catastrophe) which is to the same extend capable of shattering subject egoistic particularity revealing the urgent priority of the Universal. Emancipation is a beautiful notion but only the few would be hard pressed to abandon their self-i interest for it , I think. could it be that Hegel saw no alternative to War in anything else ?

[@nightoftheworld]

26:20 *Hegel’s investment in breaking up the reign of privacy* “Hegel does have a crucial insight into the way that war disrupts the isolated particularism that threatens the modern world. What Hegel didn’t see is that there are alternatives to war that do what he envisions war doing. So I think that Hegel rightly grasps that we need some vehicle for promulgating the universal in an epoch of runaway particularism, that seems to me just utterly self-evident from an emancipatory perspective-but there are less misleading institutions than war I believe. For instance one could imagine a requirement for public service that rips people out of their isolation (in the way that war does) without spurring nationalist pride, without rescuing the capitalist economy and without hiding societies contradictions. So the universal public service would break up the reign of privacy by introducing an irrevocable duty and yet not creating this opposition between friend and enemy. And I think this is the dimension of war that leads to Hegel’s investment in it and universal public service gives the lie to particularism without giving reign to jingoism.”

[@toddmcgowan8233]

Yes, that sounds great, which is probably a problem with it. I think that hating the right things, unfortunately, obviates the motivation for hatred. We hate for bad reasons. But hopefully I'm wrong about that!

[@nightoftheworld]

@@toddmcgowan8233 thanks for replying to what I deleted hah. I will recontextualize for others: Sheldon Solomon (following Freud and Becker) stated that _“we’re never going to get rid of hate and probably shouldn’t try-so rather than hating someone for being homosexual or hating their national anthem, we have to hate the right things, like poverty or authoritarian types.”_ Which it all sounds great at first, especially given the statistics behind poverty and the ideal of democracy, but there is an ideological mess still lingering behind the simplicity of the concepts. Despite Sheldon’s avowal of _perpetual struggle_ with hate (war), it seems he is still dealing in Kantian perpetual peace, as there is a glimmer that if we focus our hate on enough of the right things that eventually we might neutralize the conditions for the development of hatred. Which as Todd is saying, hating the right things means undoing the motivations for hatred-we wouldn’t be hating then, we’d be communing openly around the nuanced issues of systems. Which surely that’s what Sheldon intends ultimately, but his “right things to hate” seems to misconceive the problems as only “out there”, overlooking the deeper ideological problems “in here.”

[@silentmandible8660]

WORLD SPIRIT TIEM

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

This claim by Hegel sounds liek a philosophical version of Peter Turchins argument in his book War Peace and War. In a nutshell, war dialectically leads to cooperation and organization which leads to better more efficient means of war and so on. In his mind, it is crucial to the development of the state. Regional alliances and global institutions and norms all evolve similarly.

[@noorelahi1997]

I'd like to defend Hegel on the charge that war produces national unity etc. I'm thinking of the example of Vietnam, and anti-war protests in general. Whenever a war breaks out, there is inevitably (a segment of the population which is in) opposition to it. This can be co-opted under the guise of "of course the war will end; once we win!" by the state, however the unity of the nation is further fractured, not bolstered. If for no other reason than the strange phenomenon of the wartime flourishing of art. Especially anti-war art. Of course, this can also be co-opted by the state in terms of "our heart breaks for the loss because of the war, but nonetheless..." if we take the word at face-value (in the style of Zizek) it's a pretty good contradictory statement. Our hearts break for the dead soldiers we sent out to die. So don't send them. End the war! In the US the unpopularity of the involvement in the war these days manifests itself as the endless criticism of 'big companies' profiteering from it. We've all heard the complaints about inflation, especially in conversations about the current war. Therefore, the war makes palpable the internal contradictions of the society. Even more so in Ukraine, contrary to the image of a united Ukraine fighting and hating all of Russia. And in Russia too, the opposition is there, but politically weak. This has little to do with popularity, and more so to do with the bureaucratic mechanisms that keep popular opinion at a distance. The only way in which we can think of war as producing unity, is by assuming that the general population consists of military officers (the only people for whom war mystifies internal contradictions). I will say though, the idea about universal public service seems extremely pertinent, as an alternative to war. Why not treat other threats as enemies as well? Climate change is the enemy; the mass production of refugees is the enemy; social injustice in the enemy; the superego is the enemy; capital is the enemy. Militarise to fight these enemies! Seems fair, and even potentially appealing.

[@nightoftheworld]

Climate change targeted as enemy will still leave it open to hate others, like Exxon mobile CEO or deniers or whatever, who are mental or are mechanically following the dictates of “grow and expand in the market”. To hate the game and not the player is the goal-but our aim ought to take a path through the self, through “me as player”. Not to shift blame onto consumers per se, but to include ourselves in the picture we are critiquing, to take deeper account by reflecting on our own footprints.

[@ztruboff]

This is a great analysis, and I want to highlight a particular point about which I am curious whether you agree. According to Avineri (and I think he is correct), Hegel uses Volk to describe the nation, but it has no ethnic or racial connotations (even though it will be later appropriated in Germany for that exact purpose). It also does not necessarily even mean a shared history, culture, or language. It is for this reason that Hegel can argue for the emancipation of the Jews in Germany. Though they may have a different religion, language, and culture, they are not in fact another Volk because they fall under the state. In sum, for Hegel, Volk is a contingent category. It just happens to cover whoever lives within the boundaries of the state and its laws, and the state (rather than race, religion, or culture) is what ultimately binds the Volk together in its difference. In other words, Hegel has no concept of the nation-state as it is often conceived of in ethnic or religious terms. Why then is this important for war? Well, as Zizek argues, war reveals that the social totality is marked by antagonism because it shows how the state transcends race, religion, culture etc. In times of war, there is a tangible realization that everybody is bound together, in spite of the obvious differences that should push them apart. For example, after 9/11, even a conservative might get teary-eyed at seeing a tribute to America done in Spanish by Hispanic Americans. They might not see how that moment manifests the universal, but before 9/11 they would have probably looked at such an act as undermining the state. (i.e. In America, we only speak English!) War highlights the difference that exists within the social field even as it overcomes it because it never completely erases it. War can also reveal the antagonism of society by pointing to the way in which the state can reinforce particularity (rather than universality). This becomes clear when those who fight only come only from one segment of society. One sees that in Russia now, where criminals are basically drafted as canon fodder and sent to the front. A war that reflects particular interests (rather than the universal, which can be manifested through the state) will always translate directly into the sacrifice of particulars whereas perhaps only a defensive war can more properly manifest the universal. All that being said, arguing that the state can be a vehicle for universality is still extremely difficult, if only because I am not sure I have ever seen it. Revolutions can obviously be universal but that is in large part because they operate in opposition to the state. I know you claim in your book on universality that communism simply lost sight of the universal, but what evidence do we have that states can maintain the centrality of the universal when everything about states pushes against it?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

I agree that the nation and nationalism is particularist, but I can think of a lot of ways that the state structure is universalist: it delivers the mail; it writes the laws that constitute peaceful interaction among everyone; it ensures that the law applies equally to everyone. To the extent that it doesn't do the latter--of course it doesn't--it's been taken over by the capitalist economy, which is what Hegel is most critical of in the Philosophy of Right

[@toddmcgowan8233]

And yes, I agree with Avineri on this and almost everything he's written

[@ztruboff]

@@toddmcgowan8233 Right, except the USSR was not taken over by a capitalist economy and still completely betrayed the universal. I want states to be vehicles for universalism. I really do! And there are obviously moments when they show flashes of it. But I just have a very hard time seeing how they can be an ongoing vehicle for universal emancipation (in the way you claim Hegel believes), and I am certainly not advocating to abolish them. However, wouldn't it make more sense to invest in globalist movements that transcend the state, which show how the universality produced by the state always exceeds the state? Isn't that what the example of the Haitian revolution (a favorite of yours) points to?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

@@ztruboff Not against what you're saying at all, but I think that Haiti was about claiming state power.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

Betrayed the Universal in what way? From what I understand, the majority of USSR citizens wanted to keep the USSR before the dissolution. Surely they must've been doing something right. @@ztruboff

[@lotoreo]

could this idea from Hegel perhaps be redeemed somewhat of we replace war with revolution?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

Well, it's true that revolution is a moment of universality that rips people out of their isolated particularity. But I don't see how one could make revolution a constant part of the state structure

[@lotoreo]

@@toddmcgowan8233 oh, yes, good point, I hadn't considered that

[@Parsons4Geist]

great book by Robert Wright on non zero sum games hints on this topic. Wright shows how most of the time throughout history zero sum wars tend to lead to non zero sum outcomes which always felt Wright has a bit of Hegelian in his thinking. but your wonderful joke points to how this is now the military industrial complex has stopped working out. we see with your point after 911/Ukraine even covid, the populist never makes a transition to the proletariat to throw off chains but looks for a new master and symbolic. a vacuum is formed and power always rushing in to fill. where Wright hits the contradiction after the war always has a moment of clarity that the group sees it was riddled with internal contradictions it seems.

[@alaspooryorick9946]

Nice one! It's such an interesting and contradictory process. Even in the originary moment of the communist movement, World War One producing both the utter disaster of the SPD capitulation in 1914 AND the October Revolution. Would it be right to say that you're making a Hegelian argument for revolutionary defeatism in the original sense that both the Kaiser and the Tsar must lose the first world war for the revolution to proceed?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

I hadn't thought of that, but that's the implication

[@kirilradovenski4121]

Considering what we are seeing in the War in Ukraine, I am more inclined to side with Zizek on the idea that war ALSO leads to the recognition of the internal negativities in that anti-corruption and anti-soviet style war command structure movements are in their peak (at least compared to the last few years), despite the populace being united in their nationalist defense from Russia. That doesn't mean that corruption in the country is not rampant, considering that it is still among the most corrupt ones in Europe, but nevertheless, it seems some active opposition towards it is being manifested precaisely because of the war.

[@kirilradovenski4121]

It is interesting that precisely the SBU and some of its most motivated officers (which participate directly in some of the most critical battles like Vuhledar, Bakhmut, Avdiivka, Soledar, etc.) are the ones leading the movements against some of the government's corruption and problematic military arrangements (incl. in regards to the time before Feb 24.).

[@yawnandjokeoh]

What are your thoughts on Leninist revolutionary defeatism?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

Someone brings that up below. I think that it does fit with this idea.

[@RichardKoenigsberg]

Monad if not a part of the state? Well, the is love, sex, food, and other forms of pleasure. Universality means what?

[@colesmatteo]

1:09 both right wing and revolutionary thinkers acknowledge the necessity of war. if the ruling class brings the condition of war on the masses then what other response is there? this is why fanon is important. this is why marx supported the union in the american civil war despite contradictions that he saw operating on that side. this is the basis of revolutionary struggle-from the panthers to the palestinians. war is brought to the people and so unfortunately they are given no other option at times. the view that this doesn’t mesh with left wing thought sounds like a bourgeois position-“the resistance should lay down their arms!” very bizarre perspective that cannot be found in the history of genuine radical thought. sounds more like a late 20th-c/early 21st-c variety of american liberalism. EDIT: i don’t want to come off as rude but this is my frustration with “why theory?” often times. the default is often a liberal (ie, not radical) academic position. i admire the resoluteness of hegel and fanon and others. they recognized that radical theory and politics isn’t something pondered inside the ivory tower. it’s worked out in the streets.

[@toddmcgowan8233]

I think there's a fundamental difference between revolutionary violence and war. The American Civil War is an example of the former, not the latter.

[@colesmatteo]

@@toddmcgowan8233 if revolutionary violence means taking violent action against an oppressive structure, then what does plain "war" mean to you? warfare requires a first mover, which in today's terms would be an aggressor. hegel believed in the necessity of wars of conquest? advocacy for engagement in a war defensively is trivial, of course.

[@toddmcgowan8233]

@@colesmatteo He doesn't really care if it's a defensive war or war of aggression. His only point is the effect of war on the subject, which is why he celebrates it. When I'm talking about it here, I'm thinking primarily of Lenin's decision to get out of WWI at all costs because of the damage it does to the struggle within the state.

[@colesmatteo]

@@toddmcgowan8233 i see your point. the way i understood your use of war was as including revolutionary “war”fare and a general condemnation of organized violence as always being right wing. though i do think there are murky cases here of violence carried out by states if we imagine non-imperialist contexts or contexts in which a state is countering imperial expansion.

[@zackeryr97]

you said you were saving a hegel joke for the end, but the joke never came. did you forget to tell the joke, or is the joke that the joke never came?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

That's funny. I just forgot to tell it but will use it sometime later for sure

[@battragon]

If you think it's very important, than why do you employ all these terms that are utter abracadabra to anyone who hasn't spent their lives on philosophy?

[@RichardKoenigsberg]

What about the individual? What about my apartment? Do I need "war" to become united. Capitalism? What does this mean. My wife bought a chicken today. And some coffee. She's a "capitalist," so she is going to ruin the world. Isolation is real. Yes, the state is always around. Civilization and its discontents.

[@tobincharles8651]

looking at your library is very distracting. Is that horizontally striped book the manuel delanda history book?

[@toddmcgowan8233]

Yes, I think it is.