Where
economics is concerned, this entails rejecting, on the one hand, a globalism
that dissolves national boundaries and pushes nations into a free trade
dogmatism that is contrary to the interests of their citizens; but also, on the
other hand, a mercantilism that walls nations off into mutually hostile camps
and treats international economic relations as a zero-sum game. From the point
of view of solidarity, neither free trade nor protectionism should be made into
ideologies; free trade policies and protectionist policies are merely tools
whose advisability can vary from case to case and require the judgment of
prudence.
Where war
and diplomacy are concerned, this vision entails rejecting, on the one hand,
the liberal and neoconservative project of pushing all nations to incorporate
themselves into the globalist blob by economic pressure, regime change, or the
like; but also, on the other hand, a Hobbesian realpolitik that sees all other
nations fundamentally as rivals rather than friends, and seeks to bully them
into submission rather than cooperate to achieve what is in each nation’s
mutual interest.
This
solidarity-oriented vision is an alternative to the false choice between what
might be called the “neoliberal” and “neo-Hobbesian” worldviews competing today
– each of which pretends that the other is the only alternative to itself. It
is the vision developed by thinkers in the Thomistic natural law tradition such
as Luigi Taparelli in the nineteenth century and Johannes Messner in the
twentieth, and which has informed modern Catholic social teaching.
The
principle of solidarity is fairly well-known to be central to natural law and
Catholic teaching about the internal
affairs of nations (and famously gave a name to Polish trade union resistance
to Communist oppression). But it ought to be better known as the ideal to
pursue in relations between nations
as well.
(From a post today at X/Twitter)
One factor complicating the family of peoples ideal is the existence of mutually opposing civilisations. But within the Christian West, a true family of peoples is a realisable goal. The "Philippine" monarchy (during the reigns of Phillips II-IV in Madrid) embodied the dynastic union of independent peoples. Most of Catholic Europe was directly involved, or allied with it (the spoiler being Renaissance and Enlightenment France), and practically the entire Westernised globe was under its sway. La Monarquia embodied subsidiarity and modernity. Its great social theorists Bellarmine, Aquinas and Suarez described what existed: allied, but independent civil and ecclesiastical societies, submission to natural and divine law, social subsidiarity. This Baroque society is the best model for modernity.
ReplyDeletePhillip ll and the Golden Age of Spain. You write knowledgeably and well, Miguel.
DeleteWell, that describes what you're rejecting, but it doesn't say anything about the position you're defending. And in my experience, people who talk about "false choices" aren't arguing for a principled position; they're promoting an eclectic compromise which, if implemented, would just collapse into one of the alternatives in short order.
ReplyDeleteSo just how does the principle of solidarity avoid both the Scylla of realpolitik and the Charybdis of globalism?
"And in my experience, people who talk about 'false choices' aren't arguing for a principled position; they're promoting an eclectic compromise which, if implemented, would just collapse into one of the alternatives in short order." - can you give some examples? Otherwise it is not clear if you would just reject every example of virtue being a mean between two vices as "an eclectic compromise".
DeleteAnyway, let's take War in Ukraine as an example.
"Solidarity" worldview would indicate that Ukraine is a victim of unjust aggression, war is just from Ukrainian side. Thus other states are to give Ukraine help that is prudent. Of course, it is not so easy to decide what exactly is prudent (and it obviously depends on the state - on geography, resources etc.).
"Neoliberal" worldview, making an idol of democracy or international cooperation might recommend doing nothing, as UN Security Council did not call for doing anything. Or it might recommend nuking Moscow, as Russia is attacking a democratic country, which could be a "sacrilege" to them. Or it might recommend a moderate help to Ukraine.
"Neo-Hobbesian" worldview, making an idol of strength or national interest, would ignore justice. It might recommend leaving Ukraine to Russia, since Russia is stronger, or extorting something from Ukraine for support. Or it might recommend supporting Ukraine, as Russia is a geopolitical rival.
As you might note, each worldview can lead to many different decisions, depending on circumstances. And some decisions can be reached based on more than one worldview.
Still the worldviews do differ, and the decisions they recommend can differ.
And, while the "solidarity" worldview should be just common sense (that's not uncommon for Thomism), it seems that in the field of International Relations as it exists no major school is fully compatible with it. "Realism" corresponds to "neo-Hobbesian" worldview, "Liberalism" corresponds to "neoliberal" worldview, seemingly nothing corresponds to "solidarity" worldview. That's a pity.
One example would be Britian's Labour Party under Blair, which described its policy as a "third way between capitalism and socialism". In practice it's a basically socialist party that makes purely tactical concessions to market economics.
DeleteAnd when one describes a virtue as a mean between vices, that means the virtue has a definite character of its own, and the vices depart from that character, each in a different way. That definite character is what's missing here. What is "solidarity"? Or if you like, just what is due to the nation? Realpolitik makes an idol of the nation, globalism pays it no regard at all; but what is its just due and proper place?
I see.
DeleteThe Church seems to agree that it would be nice to have a more extensive discussion of rights of nations: "In this perspective, special attention should be given to the fact that there is still no international agreement that adequately addresses 'the rights of nations', the preparation of which could profitably deal with questions concerning justice and freedom in today's world." ("Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church", in number 435).
I guess philosophers will have to write lots of papers and books before diplomats will be able to proceed.
Yet, isn't the situation with "just price" similar? St. Thomas Aquinas writes that we should buy and sell for "just price", but does not give an algorithm for calculating it in the general case.
So, is that useless? Not really. For example, that suggests the approach to negotiation like the one suggested by Fisher and Ury (with an effort to find objectively just deal, looking at various interests), rather that the approach tried by Trump (which seems to be based on trying to get the other side to give up). And that is useful even if we do not have an algorithm for finding the just price in the general case.
So, I would expect that knowing that one should pursue Solidarity might be useful even if we haven't yet worked out all the details.
So is Trump pro-solidarity or anti-solidarity?
ReplyDeleteThat's easy. Trump, being both a crooked businessman and a modern pagan, sees nations as rival corporations locked in a zero-sum conflict in which someone is always either screwing or being screwed, not unlike the ancient Roman understanding of human society. Ergo, he is anti-solidarity.
DeleteSeems pretty anti- to me. Most US politicians do. I don’t know about the rest of the world.
DeleteI am unsure that the former option, the “globalist” one, isn’t just a very shoddy application of the Solidarity idea. Most proponents of the former do not expect nations to disappear or all authorities to go to a higher body. Was the Holy Roman Empire (a limited constitutional monarchy incorporating Christian states each under a separate rex) really different in kind rather than degree? Far be it from me to defend modern applications of this idea.
ReplyDeleteAlmost certainly.
DeleteLiberalism is a Christian heresy, and that's precisely how heresies work.
As Chesterton has said in "Orthodoxy": "The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone.".
Similarly, Anarchocapitalism is an exaggeration of Subsidiarity, isolated from Solidarity. Or Sola Scriptura is an exaggeration of Biblical inerrancy, isolated from Papal infallibility etc.
MP,
DeleteGood quote.
I think that the OP is making a category mistake here. Yoram Hazony has a recent interview in which he discusses the collection of nation-states as the political position which rejects globalism on the one-hand and the pre-national system of tribes and clans getting together to defend themselves on an immediate needs basis (rather than standing army) on the other. How nation-states should act towards each other is a separate question.
ReplyDelete