On July 31st I posted a notice about my short paper called “Epicurus and politics: why I think he was wrong”. Regular reader Owen Bell, a student of History and Politics at Exeter University, England, has written back in reply. I think what he has to say is thoughtful and well-informed and deserves to be posted in full. Thank you, Owen.
– – – – – – – – –
“I agree with you that Epicurus acted wisely given the circumstances of his time. Had he chosen to become politically involved, the authorities would’ve probably had him executed. His ideas would not have become as widespread, nor would the culture and way of life he promoted have been as popularised. Amongst other things, what distinguished Epicurus from many of his contemporaries was his lack of ego. He wasn’t interested in fame or popular approval. Rather, his priority was leading by example – creating a model way of acting morally and happily that others could follow. For Epicurus, politics meant the imposition of force, something which was likely to cause pain. This was antithetical to his utilitarian ethics, that the most moral course of action was the one that resulted in the least pain.
“The other matter that I strongly agree with you about is the nature of the state being fundamentally different in the contemporary world from the classical world. Due to the complex nature of modern institutions (welfare provision, security services, infrastructure etc…), government needs to be more involved in the running of society, in order to prevent injustices from occurring. Take for instance, the issue of financial regulation. In Epicurus’ time, such regulation would’ve been regularly straightforward- a ban on counterfeit coins, enforcement of debt repayments and maybe controls on interest rates. Nowadays, the issue is almost infinitely complex, requiring sometimes multiple regulatory bodies to constantly oversee the industry and make adjustments. And as you well know, these bodies often get things horribly wrong. Because of the necessarily more comprehensive governments we now live under, we can no longer truly isolate ourselves from their decisions the way Epicurus was able to do so.
“I have a slight issue with your view of globalisation. I think the ancient world was more globalised than you give it credit for. International trade was extremely commonplace, especially in the Mediterranean. During the Roman Empire, Latin was more universal than English is today. Vast international empires such as the Macedonian or Persian Empire gave vast swathes of territory a common system of governance. In contrast, the contemporary world actually allows for isolation. For instance, improvements in food production mean that countries don’t rely on each other as much to feed their people. Food imports are almost entirely luxuries, not necessities. The internet means we can communicate effectively with each other and buy a huge array of products and services without leaving our homes. We are now more informed about events abroad; in a way, this has given us a stronger sense of regional and local identity, by giving us something to contrast ourselves against. In England, Northern accents are increasing in popularity because Northerners are more aware of the South, and don’t want to sound like it.
“You mention young people who didn’t turn out to vote during the EU referendum. I actually very much agree with the phrase, ‘couldn’t be bothered.’ There were very few people who didn’t vote as a matter of principle. A week after the referendum, I went home to my parents house in Crawley – a borough in which 58% of people voted to Leave. That Sunday, they had two young men from their church round for lunch. One of them justified the fact that he didn’t vote on the basis that to do so would be ‘effort’, and that effort wasn’t worth putting in. I understand he is an exceptionally lazy man, having dropped out of Oxford because he didn’t revise for an exam. But I think he was more representative of an increasingly prevalent attitude than he would care to admit. My parents (I suspect) had them round to demonstrate to me how wonderful young Christian men could be, but if they did, their efforts backfired spectacularly!
“Overall, I agree that we should be involved in politics; after all, learning about it constitutes half of my degree. I would simply concede that in a world as complex and divided as ours, there is very little we can do to change things. Part of the reason for the rise in authoritarian demagoguery is that people feel as if our governments are powerless. And to an extent, they are right. The political class hails globalisation as the guarantor of peace and prosperity. We are told to put our faith in international institutions such as the UN, the EU, the IMF and the WTO because international co-operation allows for peaceful resolutions to interstate disputes. But to much of the working class, the increasingly international basis for policymaking represents a loss of ‘national sovereignty.’ Now I actually think this is a good thing – international institutionalism is an important check on the potential for nation states to abuse their power; the European Convention on Human Rights is an excellent example of this. But I accept that this is a very upper/upper middle class view. For the largely disillusioned Leave voters, the solution for our national problems is for the nation state to resume its absolute sovereignty. Trump talks about putting ‘America First,’ Le Pen talks about strengthening the French nation- it is all fundamentally the same.
“This is the dilemma of our age. The proletariat are no longer left wing, if they ever were. Everyone on the Left seems to talk about disillusionment, and the need to mitigate the consequences of globalisation, largely through increased wealth redistribution. Such efforts are bound to fail. There is now a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between the views of the Leftist intelligentsia and the vast majority of the working poor. The former wants social and cultural globalisation, mass immigration, free trade (though not necessarily free trade deals) and a welfare state that doesn’t distinguish between immigrants and the native born. The latter wants the reintroduction of industries that were rendered uncompetitive decades ago, jobs that are impossible to bring back, a large degree of protectionism, heavy restrictions on immigration, ‘law and order’, a patriotic and homogeneous culture, and a welfare system that is ludicrously generous for the native born but punitive for the immigrant.
“I’m sorry for such as long email. I’m also sorry for being so pessimistic. But no one on the Left acknowledges this, its important it’s said”.
