If America became a socialist state and was entirely opposed to capitalism, would it still be America? The Polish writer, Jozef Mackiewicz, once asserted: "There is no Polish state in the guise of the Polish People's Republic. The Polish People's Republic is not a continuation of the history of Poland but a continuation of the history of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution." [P. 136, The Triumph of Provocation].
What happens when we radically transform a country or a person? Would a socialist America still be America? And could this process occur without violence? I recently rediscovered a fascinating discourse on unity and continuity by a philosopher who turned away from socialism.
In his book The Tragic Sense of Life in Men and Nations Miguel de Unamuno began his discourse on unity and continuity by marveling that a man should want to be someone else. "I can understand one's wanting to have what someone else has, his wealth or his knowledge," wrote Unamuno. "But to be someone else: that's something I don't understand." After all, being someone else signifies the death of oneself. This violates the inborn desire of every person to continue as themselves. Notice how defensive a person becomes when someone attempts to change them. The same is also true of nations subjected to radical reform. Such nations typically resist.
"Every man defends his personality," wrote Unamuno, "and will agree to a change in his way of thinking or of feeling only insofar as the change can fit into the unity of his spirit and mesh with its continuity...." Change is natural, of course, and happens to us all. But natural change, or evolutionary change , is something that respects the subject's past as well as his identity. Unamuno wrote: "A man can be greatly changed, but only within the stream of his continuity."
If some person or nation experiences a radical change of personality, that change may be described as "pathological." Such a change signifies the destruction of memory, of continuity. "For the victim," noted Unamuno, "this ... is the equivalent of death...." The statement of Jozef Mackiewicz on the transformation of Poland into a Communist state, in which Poland is no longer Poland, therefore asserts that the transformation from non-Communist to a Communist state signifies a total dissolution of one thing in favor of another. The old thing perishes from the change, from a violation of its identity. In consequence, a new thing takes its place.
Unamuno says that any attempt to tamper with a fundamental element in a living thing (e.g., giving a fish wings instead of fins) threatens that particular living thing. Every fundamental part is necessary to the whole. Subverting one element also subverts the other elements, breaking the unity of its being. According to Unamuno, "Everything that conspires in me to break the unity and continuity of my life conspires to destroy me and, therefore, to destroy itself." This formulation leads directly to Unamuno's punch line: "Every individual who conspires among a people to break the spiritual unity and continuity of that people tends to destroy it and to destroy himself as a part of that people."
Here we have, undoubtedly, one of the most profound formulations in the history of conservative thought. It reveals a genuine concern for all things breakable; for we all are, as individuals and nations, entirely breakable. The thought that we are not breakable is childish. The child, having no history, does not realize what can happen (because he has no idea of what has already happened). Of course, one might ask why individuals or nations should be preserved at all. Why does the individual matter? Why should a nation matter? Because, says Unamuno, "Man is an end, not a means. All civilization is directed toward man...." Even when a man sacrifices himself for others, even when he dies for his country, he merely sacrifices his life. He does not sacrifice his soul. "And the less a man believes in the soul ... the more the worth of this poor transitory life is exaggerated. And this exaggeration is the source of all that effeminate mawkishness against war."
In this formulation Unamuno is not glorifying war. Instead, he strikes a blow against mawkishness and effeminacy. "If a philosopher is not a man," wrote Unamuno, "he is anything but a philosopher; he is above all a pedant, and a pedant is a caricature of a man." In Unamuno's philosophy, such is also a coward who is afraid to acknowledge the essential tragedy of existence; namely, that the body must die; that the world is full of discontinuity and disunity (i.e., fragility); that the kingdom of truth and beauty, the realm of the soul, is not of this world. Only then do we have the courage to defend those things that are truly permanent, granting authentic unity and continuity to men and nations.
As a postscript, by way of illustration, let us consider an actual occurrence in the life of Miguel de Unamuno. The story is recounted in Antony Beevor's history of the Spanish Civil War, The Battle for Spain, that Unamuno, having initially supported the nationalist rising was grieved to see the savage butchery and abuses of the nationalists. Upon the platform of his own Salamanca University (of which he was rector), he stood before a crowd of nationalist dignitaries (including Gen. Franco's wife) and said: "All of you await my words. You know me and are aware that I am unable to remain silent. At times to remain silent is to lie. For silence can be interpreted as acquiescence." He then referred to the preceding speaker, Professor Maldonado, who had recommended the "scalpel of fascism" as the national cure. In response to this, the one-eyed and one-armed General Millan Astray had shouted "Long live Death!" About this Unamuno said, "And I, who have spent my life shaping paradoxes, must tell you as an expert authority that this outlandish paradox is repellent to me. General Millan Astray is a cripple. Let it be said without undertone.... General Millan Astray would like to create Spain anew, a negative creation in his own image and likeness; for that reason he wishes to see Spain crippled as he unwittingly made clear."
Gen. Astray screamed in response, "Death to the intelligentsia! Long Live Death!" According to Beevor's account, the general's body guard pointed his submachine gun at Unamuno's head. The Falangists and army officers drew their side arms, and took aim. Unamuno calmly continued to speak: "This is the temple of the intellect and I am its high priest. It is you who profane its sacred precincts. You will win, because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince. For to persuade you would need what you lack: reason and right in your struggle. I consider it futile to exhort you to think of Spain."
Realizing that Unamuno was about to be lynched, Gen. Astray directed the philosopher to take the arm of Gen. Franco's wife and depart under her protection. Later Unamuno was placed under house arrest and executed. "If a philosopher is not a man," he had written, "he is anything but a philosopher...." The defense of unity and continuity is, in part, a defense against violence. It is also a militant stand, speaking truth to power; that is, to preserve the unity and continuity of ourselves.
To change a country into something opposed to what that country once was, formerly, is to break with the necessities of continuity. Such is the prerogative of revolutionaries, fanatics, and raging social misfits. Disciples of violence all, they talk of a better world, but they affect only death. They bring only destruction and loss; especially, they affect a loss of soul. This is not only true of violent revolutions. If America has already experienced a loss of soul it is due to the social revolution which began in the 1960s, and continues today. For some of us, this loss of soul is evident. For others, it is something "cool" with which they identify.
