This is what characterizes the 'permanent revolution' of liberalism, the work of 'democrats' and 'conservatives' alike to realize the future state of liberty, equality, and fraternity by means of minor increments. This is the meaning behind Chesterton's famous phrase: 'The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.'
The permanent revolution succeeds where the revolutionary moment fails because the advance of the radical is invariably followed by the return of the reactionary. By foregoing a violent and instant revelation of the progressive destiny, the liberal can avoid the inevitable result of what happens when man goes too far - he ends up somewhere on the other side. By quietly introducing new acts and novel measures, which are cloaked beneath the rational disguise of 'changing with the times,' the liberal can slowly, peaceably undermine the traditions of his oppressor and replace them with the plants of progress, the garden of Eden that will at last erase our political animosity and difference. Then the Revolution will have finally reached its end, and it will have done so not with the sword but with the word.
Thus, Voegelin:
'A first answer to the
problem of the crisis is given by the liberals who wish to transform the
violent rhythm of Revolution and Restoration into a gentle undulation of
progressive reform. This idea was developed in the liberal periodical Le Censeur by its editors Charles Comte
and Charles Dunoyer, in 1815. Revolution is recognized as a necessity insofar
as it is required by the light of reason, but there are other revolutions which
are motivated by pride and ambition. The revolution which resulted in the liberal
monarchy of 1791 was commanded by reason while the Republic, the Consulate, as
well as the movements which tend to restore the ancient regime, belonged to the
second type.
There are two states which are equally bad for a society: complete
stagnation and prolonged, anarchical disorder. "The one clings too strongly
even to its most puerile customs, and to its most superstitious practices; the
other indulges in the disorderly movement of passions." Besides, the one state
produces the other. Anarchical revolution is inevitable when a regime insists
on its continuation against reason and history, while the reactionary despotism
of a Bonaparte will rise from anarchy. "There is only one means for nations to
prevent the great revolutions; that is, to put themselves into a state of
permanent and wisely regulated revolution." When a nation is guided
intelligently it is protected against all revolution, or rather its revolution
is "permanent, but slow and progressive, so that it follows without jolts the
progress of reason."
The
articles of Charles Comte and Dunoyer have their importance because the Censeur represents the liberal
restoration at its intellectual best. We see here developing an attitude toward
the crisis which remains typical in later liberalism and we can observe in its
origins the growth of an escapist cliché. The rhythm of Revolution and
Restoration is considered a stupid exaggeration of the process of social
reform, the violent swings of the pendulum ought to be toned down – under the
title of “permanent revolution” – to the gentle process that today is called "peaceful change." The problem of the crisis itself disappears and is swallowed
up by the category of progress under the guidance of reason.
We have
characterized this attitude as escapist because it skillfully dodges the real
issue of the crisis. A society is by definition in a state of crisis when its
remedial forces, while perhaps present, are socially ineffective. The social
problems which urgently require a solution cannot be solved because the
spiritual and moral strength for the task is lacking in the ruling group. In
this situation, the counsel to do what is not done because it cannot be done is
obviously vain. And the counsel is not only vain, it even adds to the gravity
of the crisis because it detracts attention from a true alternative. The
progressive counsel of Charles Comte and Dunoyer (and this has remained a
constant factor in the aggravation of the Western crisis) poses the alternative
of stagnation in the solution of social problems and intelligent gradual
reform. This alternative does not exist concretely; the fact of the tardiness
in the solution of explosive social problems is proof that on the level of
pragmatic politics the alternative of intelligent gradualism does not exist.
The true alternative would be the restoration of spiritual substance in the
ruling groups of a society, with the consequent restoration of the moral
strength in creating a just social order. The problem of the crisis must be stated
in the Platonic terms of spirit and power. The pragmatic value of this
alternative, as experience has shown, is not very high. The appearance of Plato
did not change the course of the Hellenic crisis, the case of Nietzsche did not
serve as a warning example for Germany nor did the appearance of Dostoievsky
make a dent in the tsarist system. Nevertheless, this is the true alternative;
and we must be clear on the point that a propaganda for gradualism which
ignores and obscures the true issue has become a serious factor in the
aggravation of the crisis.
The
idea which emerges from the articles of the Censeur
is so particularly grave in its consequences because it implies the further
fallacy that the abolition of a social injustice will automatically result in a
satisfactory stable order. The revolutionary abolition of a regime that is
experienced as oppressive by a powerful stratum of society will certainly satisfy the successful revolutionary group, but it is not at all a
guarantee that the new group will be more fit than the old one to discharge the
obligations of rulership competently. Spiritual disorder is not the privilege
of a ruling class; the revolutionary class which displaces it may be quite as
deficient in this point, and even more so. The spiritual and moral competence
of the bourgeoisie in handling problems posed by the industrial proletariat and
the growing lower middle class was certainly a match for the incompetence of
the pre-revolutionary aristocracy in handling the problem posed by the rising
bourgeoisie. The record of the German lower middle class in the National
Socialist revolution is no more edifying.
The worst problem in the dynamic of
the Western crisis is the fact that the resistance of the ruling class of the
moment against "peaceful change" can derive a degree of
spiritual legitimacy from the qualities of the revolutionary groups. The
liberal and progressive idea of the “permanent revolution” of the editors of
the Censeur ignores this whole class
of problems, and it must ignore them because the spiritual problem of the
crisis is obscured for them by the enlightenment cliché of "reason." But the
light of reason is a dubious guide in the night of the spirit.'
Eric Voegelin, From Enlightenment to Revolution (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press 1975), Pp. 179-81
No comments:
Post a Comment