Herfried Münkler

Very informative book that draws some pretty harrowing parallels between past, present and future.

History is very interesting phenomenon. It is said that man who does not know history is destined to repeat it. So isnt it interesting that in this time and place where knowledge is available to anyone we again see powerful people doing the same mistakes as their historical predecessors. People are short sighted in general - no matter the education people dont see beyond their lifespan. From time to time few people appear that try to plan for greater time-span and they succeed, they bring some form of control is and peace is brought back - but this very peace time causes the problem - people forget very soon the horrors of the past and we go back to square one.

Thats in general message of the book. After centuries of bloody feuds, mercenary captains prolonging the wars for their own benefits (not unlike the Yojimbo) states are established and with them rules of conduct. Are these rules always followed - of course not. But they existed and those not following them would end up pariahs - so most of them tried to adhere to the rules because risking economic sanctions is never fun. Fact is - without rules mayhem takes place in which some make great fortunes but majority suffers.

As long as there is a dictionary definition of "just war", as long is war cheap for general public of nation willing to go to war (due to either use of advanced stand off weaponry or proxy soldiers (be that mercenaries or crime syndicates)) and as long there are states that feel that general rules of engagement are there to be applied to others and not to them there will always be an instability. Use of proxy forces only worsenes the situation and allows the rise of war profiteers on every side. Modern conflicts show that is more than sufficient to have one genration raised in abnormal post-war, constant-tension environment to forever break that society. Path leading back to normality becomes ever so longer as years pass by.

Is conflict constant in nature? Sure it is but if left uncontrolled it can bring everything down. That is why rules where established in the first place. Constant war destroys everything - it is based on pillage, destruction and robbery. War industry is the only means of industry and production in this case, but this industry brings nothing to society itself. It only enriches the people running that type of industry.

So what happens is nothing new - means of waging war are new, deadlier and mores sophisticated but general politics and various economic interests are always the same. While various modern mercenaries, condotieris and privateers are free to roam and do what they like wars will not end but slowly burn until there is nothing left in conflict zones and local population knows nothing else than constant war. And when everything is destroyed conflict will try finding the way of sustaining itself because many will depend upon it.

Hopefully international community is smarter than to allow this to happen. Or is it?… (més)

I came across this book by accident. I was looking into a book about history of Hapsburg monarchy and I saw this book with pretty interesting title so I decided to buy them both.

First and foremost this is not an easy read - and I think it was not meant to be a popular read for everybody. It is densely written with a lot of foot-notes and references. It is a serious read and it may take you some time to go through it - but trust me when I tell you it is worth it.

I just read one of the comments on the book saying that author is off-target when it comes to United States. I think that (with all due respect) reader is completely off-target because this is not a book that is written to portray this or that state of modern times as an empire (last chapter shows as much) - author tries to explain that from beginning of time countries have tried to exert their power and might over the other countries - thus they became first hegemon's or what you might call primus-inter-pares in state alliances. But very rarely do they stay at that position of power. Why? Simple, because of two things - (a) when someone is enjoying privilege and higher status (how ever it is achieved - through valor and hard work or through not so noble ways) that breeds resentment in others especially if there is no common enemy or cause (this is something that is true for any sphere of human activity) and (b) that same privilege and higher status is something that nobody is willing to give up no matter the cost. This breeds hostility and this culminates in conflict.

Faced with possibility that others may unite against them hegemons feel need to grow and expand to avoid being completely dissolved. Their fighting and gaining more and more ground sets them on the path to the empire. Some succeed, some fail, some last for millennia but the point is that states will fight to expand their zone of influence until there is no longer point to grow - when borders of known world are conquered. When that point is reached empire needs to find the way to manage itself internally (don't you find it very easy to complaint on others and feel rather silly when there is no-one to complain about than you - same is with states, small or great - internal issues are always greater cause of concern than external issues).

This step is what author calls "The Augustan threshold". It marks the period of decline but if it is properly managed this decline can last very long and may not be decline at all but controlled fall that may provide other alleys and venues for the empire to prosper and survive.

But very rare are those that manage this.

So to wrap up my review - this book is not about naming names but about showing patterns in behavior of great states and how they embark on the path to empire not solely because they want but because natural order of things forces them to do that in order to survive. And if someone recognizes behavior of some countries while reading this book that just proves the authors point. Nature knows of no vacuum and there is no vacuum in the world of politics. Only thing required to have peace is to have balance and (near) equality present (full equality is rarely achievable and even then it is situation more akin to rivalry than camaraderie) - otherwise things may turn sour for everybody.

Recommended for anyone interested in politics and/or history.
… (més)

Danke, Herr Prof. Dr. Münkler, für Ihre profunde, toll geschriebene und sehr stichhaltige Analyse. Am Wochenende war die Wahl in Bayern, bei der die AfD zweitstärkste Partei wurde. Ich habe das Buch heute zur Hand genommen, um dieses Abschneiden etwas zu deuten und auch um Argumente zu finden, die ich in Diskussionen einbringen kann. Beides liefert das Buch. Ich bin sehr dankbar dafür. Es ist super zu lesen und ich werde es definitiv wieder zur Hand nehmen. Genügend Stellen habe ich schon markiert.… (més)

Everybody seems to know Machiavelli as advocate of cynical use of power. Common but wrong: what is understood under „Machiavellianism“ is a distortion of Machiavelli’s political thoughts expressed not only in Il Principe but also in his main work Discorsi and other political writings - often again misinterpreted as expressing contradictory thoughts. In reality, as Münkler writes, both are reflections about the best actions to be taken in response to particular historical situations and times within a cyclic perception of history in which rise and fall inevitably follow each other during the existence of a state. Only the duration in which a state remains at its peak and the speed of its recovery from its nadir is determined by the political action taken. The right political actions are solely determined by their efficiency given the conditions and cannot be guided by ethics in order to be effective. For Machiavelli the self-preservation and stability of the state was of the highest priority as the only guarantee against the corrupting tendencies inherent in human nature even if it was not always possible to reconcile politics and morals.
However, as Münkler states, Machiavelli has never written an apology of immorality in politics as he has been accused of again and again. Machiavelli’s lasting importance lies in first raising political question, explicitly and implicitly, which still remain unanswered.

Niccolò Machiavelli was born 1469 in Florence. He held important political positions and only after being forcibly retired and banned in 1512 by the Medicis he found time for his political-philosophical writings.

Münkler discusses and places Machiavelli in the context of the political and economic realities facing Florence in the second half of the 15th century as well as within the intellectual history of political thought from Antiquity and Medieval ages. This is an immensely thorough work. It takes into consideration, it seems, all important relevant literature (more than 500 sources are listed) until its publication in 1982. I wonder why an english edition is missing … (I-21)… (més)