I review Peter Turchin’s book from 2005. My final paragraph:
For libertarians, these are crucial questions. In order for markets to function well, they must be embedded in cultures that promote pro-social behavior and are conducive to trust. If the absence of external conflict weakens the bonds that prevent internal conflict, then the libertarian goal of peaceful cooperation in all domains will prove elusive.
Coincidentally, the Journal of Economic Perspectives that just came out has an article on this topic by Michal Bauer, Christopher Blattman, Julie Chytilová, Joseph Henrich, Edward Miguel, and Tamar Mitts. They conclude,
Most of the papers in this emerging literature agree on one central matter: that the data strongly reject the common view that communities and people exposed to war violence will inevitably be deprived of social capital, collective action, and trust. Across the 16 studies from economics, anthropology, political science, and psychology, the average effect on a summary index of cooperation is positive and statistically significant, if moderate in magnitude.
Yes, battling an enemy releases oxytocin and enhances social cohesion:
http://www.livescience.com/6570-love-hormone-lead-war.html
It’s one of the many ways our evolutionary history (with its endemic tribal conflicts) has made us kind of a shitty species.
And yes, it’s true that Londoners will probably never again experience that lovely, intense level of fellow-feeling that they had while standing defiantly alone amidst the bombs and rubble during the Blitz. But so what? It doesn’t mean they can’t have a stable (less euphoric but also less dangerous) society based on ‘cool’ rather than ‘hot’, hormone-driven cooperation.
The elites turn to the state for employment and additional income, and drive up its expenditures at the same time that the tax revenues decline because of the impoverished state of the population. When the state’s finances collapse, it loses control of the army and police. Freed from all restraints, strife among the upper classes escalates into civil war, and the discontent among the lower classes explodes into popular rebellions.
I am relieved to read this is how older societies broke down because it clearly could never happen here.
My guess is the immediate WINNING wars makes a nation work together and unsuccessful wars will inevitably be deprived of social capital, collective action, and trust. (It probably makes a significant difference if the war is fought on your soil as well.) Compare the post-war WW2 versus Vietnam reactions to the soldiers. I always assumed to many original supporters including Donald Trump of the Iraq War 2, the problem was we should have won in 18 months and taken their oil. (Of course, I still believe had we won Iraq in 18 months, invasion of Iran was slated for 2006.)
Donald Trump when he was asked before the invasion wad just a citizen. His major (but not only) fault was believing the lying politicians when he made his judgment.
That isn’t cooperation, it is compliance.
Not having read Turchin’s book my question would be: would you need war, on however large or small a scale, to achieve these pro-social effects? Do you just need an exogenous challenge or threat, not even man-made, like a natural disaster; or even adversity in the pursuit of a goal (building a town on the edge of the 18th century American frontier) where people have to come together or the outcome is both collectively and individually negative?
“Not having read Turchin’s book my question would be: would you need war, on however large or small a scale, to achieve these pro-social effects?”
Nah – -there’s always college football. But the band-of-brothers, us-against-them stuff is certainly not the only kind of cooperation and arguably not the kind you can use as a solid foundation for a stable cooperative society.
And, of course, none of this is new — William James published ‘The Moral Equivalence of War’ in 1910.
” But the band-of-brothers, us-against-them stuff is certainly not the only kind of cooperation and arguably not the kind you can use as a solid foundation for a stable cooperative society.”
My admittedly secondhand application of Turchin is that societal cooperation is cyclical: combinations of chance (the contingencies of human agency included IMO) and necessity build it up, and later tear it down. The band-of-brothers stuff is probably necessary but not sufficient to achieve that cooperation long term: e.g. you build an interstate highway system, and invent TCP/IP to enable certain types of cooperation (travel and communication) in a nuclear conflict. Both frameworks have wide benefits for cooperation beyond a conflict scenario. Both frameworks, in addition to various benefits, enable social fragmentation. This over time breaks down, or at least adds friction to, social cooperation and cohesion.
“And, of course, none of this is new — William James published ‘The Moral Equivalence of War’ in 1910.”
Absolutely it’s not new. I’d just add that progressives I know watch movies like Sebastian Junger’s documentary Restrepo and lament they can’t foster on behalf of their ideology that you witness between the members of the 173rd Airborne Brigade’s Battle company. As James Burnham wrote fifty years ago: no one but saints and neurotics is willing to die for a five percent increase in Medicare spending.
In his book “Nonzero”, Robert Wright also suggests that higher level social organization often emerges from cooperative defense.
I think I remain optimistic about a future libertarian society that is sustainable without external conflict. I think its important to distinguish between the forces that help establish highly cooperative social organizations from those that cause them to later decay/decline/fall.
I think this idea of “asabiya” applies more to the rise than the decline of empires.
I guess a flip-side to Turchin’s work, from a libertarian/classical point of view is that it shows “cooperation” and “we’re in it all together,” isn’t necessarily what it’s cracked up to be. Such ideals are routinely invoked by both progressives and traditionalists. But if conflict leads to cooperation then it stands to reason that as people cooperate on a larger and larger scale then it raises the likelihood of conflict with other groups that don’t share their interests. If cooperation and conflict are two sides the same coin then the ideal of “we’re all in this together” is maybe a more dangerous one than the realistic maxim that good fences make for good neighbors.
“The elites turn to the state for employment and additional income,” << this is the corporate welfare which has to end, and there will be some successful politicians which are able to lead movements to stop this.
It won't be Hillary; it might be Trump but nobody knows. It is more likely to be white, mildly pro-life Republican — precisely because the Dem culture war against the working class whites has been so successful.
One could easily argue that Trump supporters are, even now, developing asabiya, starting with the sticking together and cooperating, with the imposing its will on others to come. This after the Dem asabiya of minorities, gays, anti-capitalists & anti-Christians have been successfully imposing their wills.
I don't like the word so much, but there is something different than merely the "Us" vs "Them", and again different than the "Insiders" vs "Outsiders".
The hope for Libertarian anti-asabiya efforts might well be to have Dems lose, and have pro-Life Reps start dominating and controlling, and creating a political coalition to genuinely reduce the power of the state to control.
It seems most likely to get worse, possibly much worse, before it gets better.