I had something else planned for this month, but I ended up with this instead. I’ll return to what I was working on, nothing gone to waste, but I thought, well, this makes sense, right here, right now. Right, so, I was doing working on some slides for a lecture and ended up watching Michel Foucault talk about revolution. I’m not really going to talk about revolution though, but rather about war, because it’s, well, rather pertinent, as the country to the east keeps going at it.
Anyway, so, it was in that chat with Noam Chomsky where Foucault points out that war is waged for the sake of winning, that’s the goal, and not because of some just cause. Now, Chomsky doesn’t agree with that, because, in his view, surely, people only take up arms if it is necessary, if they can live with, if they have a just cause. Obviously, Foucault doesn’t agree, so it’s like, okay, agree to disagree.
Foucault’s stake struck me as particularly Spinozist, even though that’s before he even mentions Baruch Spinoza. Why does his take on war remind of Spinoza then? Well, because, in his ‘Ethics’, Spinoza (137) has this to say:
“[I]n no case do we strive for, wish for, long for, or desire anything, because we deem it to be good, but on the other hand we deem a thing to be good, because we strive for it, wish for it, long for it, or desire it.”
Now, let’s replace good with just in Spinoza’s (137) formulation:
“[I]n no case do we strive for, wish for, long for, or desire anything, because we deem it to be [just], but on the other hand we deem a thing to be [just], because we strive for it, wish for it, long for it, or desire it.”
So, why does Russia wage war against Ukraine? Because there’s that just cause? Because it is right to do so? No. It does appeal to such, claiming that this and/or that territory belongs to it, but that’s the point. The regime wants those territories and that’s enough to call it just. That’s what Foucault means by winning.
This, of course, also applies to Ukraine. It is worth noting that, as a country, it is, by no means, some model to be emulated by others. It has its fair share of problems, and then some. That’s for sure. So, anyway, its defense of itself is, by no means, inherently more than just than the attack. I know, I know, spicy, spicy, a real hot take, but bear with me. It all makes sense if you just wait for a second.
But why does Ukraine fight then? It fights, because it has to, because it must win. There’s no alternative. It’s do or die. It’s that simple. Everything else is bullshit.
So, to be absolutely clear, the notion of justice is utterly useless to Ukraine at this point. The enemy would, of course, want Ukrainians to debate that, to question themselves, the more, the better, because, again, it’s also about winning for Russia. Anything that sows discontent in Ukraine is a win for Russia.
Now, what about civil wars? Well, firstly, there’s nothing civil about them, but, jokes aside, that also applies to them. Let’s take something like the US Civil War, circa 1861 to 1865. What was that all about? Was it about slavery or, rather, about its eventual abolition? Well, yes, but that’s just the catalyst. The war itself was simply about winning and not in just this matter, but, well, in every matter as the winner takes it all and can thus dictate how things will be run from there on.
It’s worth noting that, at that point, it was, basically a deadlock. For or against, half and half, give or take. But the thing with a union is that you can have new members join it. If those were to be for slavery, that would tip the system in favor of slavery. If those were to be against slavery, that would tip the system against slavery. So, if you were for or against, you’d, of course, advocate for the new states to be either for or against respectively and that way you’d have your way. The problem is that if the new states won’t go your way, you won’t have your way. It will be the other way.
So, what’s common about the two, the war in Ukraine and the US Civil War? Well, it’s both about what the one waging war feels entitled to. As Spinoza (137) puts it, they don’t desire the good, nor the just, and, instead, they think it’s all good or just because that’s what they desire. In the former case, it is Russia that feels entitled to Ukraine, because of various historical reasons that any other party could also invoke. To put it bluntly, its leadership thinks it belongs to them, because they think that it belongs to them. In the latter case, it was the South that felt entitled to slave labor, to owning the workforce as property, because, well, that’s the ultimate way of minimizing the costs related to whatever it is that you are producing, inasmuch it relies on human labor. They believe in that its good for them, which is why they were willing to fight over it. The opposing side in both cases obviously rejects this view, because what else can it do?
What about the people fighting in wars? They must surely think that a war is just for them to participate. Well, no, I wouldn’t say that’s the case. Okay, that can be the case. I mean it does kind of help you keep going, thinking that you are one of the good guys. Like who’s in for something thinking that they are the bad guys. That said, I’d say that a lot of the people, the grunts and the officers alike, know that it’s all bullshit, one way or another, but they don’t exactly have any other choice but to be on the winning side, which may of course end up being the losing side. At that point, when you either risk dying by playing a part or risk dying by refusing to take part, the discourse, whatever it is, probably isn’t something that keeps your mind occupied.
References
- Chomsky, N., and M. Foucault ([1971] 2006). Human Nature: Justice vs. Power: A Debate Between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault. In N. Chomsky and M. Foucault, The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature (pp. 1–67). New York, NY: The New Press.
- Spinoza, B. ([1667] 1884). The Ethics. In B. Spinoza, The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza, Vol. II (R. H. M. Elwes, Trans.) (pp. 43–271). London, United Kingdom: George Bell and Sons.