We must not confuse violence and force

Few thinkers have left such a pervasive influence on the European New Right as the Franco-Italian-Swiss political sociologist and economist Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923). At the beginning of the Twentieth century, Pareto was an influential and respected political thinker, although after the Second World War his popularity rapidly declined. The fascist experience in Europe, which used and abused Pareto’s intellectual legacy, undoubtedly contributed to his subsequent fall into intellectual disgrace.

Pareto’s political sociology is hardly compatible with the modern liberal or socialist outlook on the world, an outlook of which Pareto was one of the most ardent critics. Throughout his work, Pareto meticulously scrutinised the energy and the driving force that lies behind political ideas and beliefs. Consequently, he came to the conclusion that ideas and beliefs often dissimulate pathological characteristics irrespective of their apparent utility and validity. Some modern students of Pareto, such as Guillaume Faye, went so far as to draw a close parallel between Pareto and Freud, observing that while Freud attempted to uncover pathological behaviour among seemingly normal individuals, Pareto tried to unmask social and political aberrations that lie camouflaged in the most respectable ideologies and political beliefs.[1]
*
Like many European conservatives before the war, Pareto was scornful of the modern liberal and socialist myth which holds that constant economic growth creates social peace and prosperity. For him, as well as for Oswald Spengler and Carl Schmitt, no matter how sophisticated some belief or ideology may appear, it is certain that in the long run it will ultimately decay. Not surprisingly, Pareto’s attempts to denounce the illusion of human progress, as well as to ‘uncover’ the nature of socialism and liberalism, prompted many contemporary theorists to distance themselves from his thought.

Pareto argues that political theories seldom become attractive on the grounds of their presumably empirical or scientific character — although, of course, they all claim to be scientific and empirical — but primarily because they can exert an enormous sentimental force upon the masses. For example, in the latter days of the Roman Empire, it was an obscure religion from Galilee that, in a short time, mobilised masses of gullible people, willing to die, willing to be tortured, and willing to torture others once their religion seized the reins of power. In the Age of Reason, the prevailing ‘religion’ among the educated people was rationalism and the belief in boundless human improvement. After that came the ‘self-evident’ ideology of liberalism and ‘scientific’ Marxism and the belief in human equality. According to Pareto, depending on each historical epoch, pathological complexes are likely to give birth to different ideological derivatives — although their irrational essence will always remain the same. Since people need to transcend reality and make frequent excursions into fantasy and the imaginary, it is natural that they resort to religious and ideological symbols, however aberrant these symbols may subsequently appear to them. In analysing this phenomenon, Pareto takes the example of Marxist ‘true believers’, and notes that ‘[t]his is the current mental framework of some educated and intelligent Marxists in regard to the theory ofvalue.From the logical point of view they are wrong; from the practical point of view and that of utility for their cause, they are probably right.’[5] Unfortunately, continues Pareto, these true believers who clamour for change know only what to destroy and how to destroy it, but are full of illusions as to what they have to replace it with, ‘[a]nd if they could imagine it, a large number among them would be struck with horror and amazement’.[6]

*
For Pareto, nations, empires, and states never die from foreign conquest but exclusively from suicide. When a nation, a class, a party, or a race becomes too degenerate or corrupted — which seems to be the predicament of every group — then another, more powerful party, class, nation, or race will surface and win over the masses, irrespective of the utility or validity of the new political theology or ideology:

A sign which almost always accompanies the decadence of an aristocracy is the invasion of humanitarian sentiments and delicate ‘sob-stories’ that render it incapable of defending its position. We must not confuse violence and force. Violence usually accompanies weakness. We can observe individuals and classes, who, having lost the force to maintain themselves in power, become more and more odious by resorting to indiscriminate violence. A strong man strikes only when it is absolutely necessary — and then nothing stops him. Trajan was strong but not violent; Caligula was violent but not strong.[9]The downtrodden and the weak will always appeal to the sense of justice of those who rule, but the moment they grab the reins of power they will become as oppressive as their former rulers. Moreover, if by chance some nation happens to display signs of excessive humanity, philanthropy, or equality, it is a certain symptom of its terminal illness. Soon another political actor will appear with enough virility and force to convince the masses that life is equally possible under a different brand of ‘justice’:

I realise that someone could answer to me that the Christians, too, called for freedom when they were oppressed, but that as soon as they came to power, they in their turn oppressed the pagans. Today, the orthodox socialists, oppressed, call for freedom but, tomorrow, if they are in power, will they give it to us...? Hope alone remains in Pandora’s box. We can only console ourselves with hypotheses since reality is so grim.[10]

Deluded by dreams of justice, equality, and freedom, what weapons do liberal democracies have today at their disposal against the ‘downtrodden’ masses worldwide? The New Right observes that the sense of guilt among Europeans in regard to Africans, Asians, and other downtrodden populations has paralysed European decision-makers, leaving them and Europe defenceless against tomorrow’s conquerors. For, had Africans or Asians been at the same technological level as Europeans, what kind of a destiny would they have reserved for Europeans? This is something indeed that Pareto likes to speculate about:

All peoples that are horrified by blood to the point of not knowing how to defend itself sooner or later will become the prey for some bellicose people. There is probably not a single foot of land on earth that has not been conquered by the sword, or where people occupying this land have not maintained themselves by force. If Negroes were stronger than Europeans, it would be Negroes dividing Europe and not Europeans dividing Africa. The alleged ‘right’ which the peoples have arrogated to themselves with the title ‘civilised’ to conquer other peoples whom they got accustomed to calling ‘uncivilised’ is absolutely ridiculous. Rather, this right is nothing but force. As long as Europeans remain stronger than Chinese, they will impose their will upon them, but if the Chinese become stronger than Europeans, these roles will be reversed...[11]

Might always comes first, and those who assume that their passionate pleas for justice and brotherhood will be heeded by those who were previously enslaved are gravely mistaken. New victors, in general, always teach their former rulers that signs of weakness result in proportionally increased punishment. To lack resolve in the hour of decision, to willingly surrender oneself to the anticipated generosity of new rulers, is a characteristic of degenerate individuals, and as Pareto writes, it is desirable for society that such individuals disappear as soon as possible.[12]
*
Pareto’s theory of illogical actions and sentimental influence irks many modern theorists worldwide, often to the point that trying to edit and publish his books becomes difficult. In the recently published edition of Pareto’s essays, Ronald Fletcher writes in the Preface that he was told by the ‘market researchers of British publishers that Pareto is “not on the reading list” and is “not taught” in current courses on sociological theory in the universities’![15] Such a response from publishers is quite predictable given Pareto’s cynicism toward democracy, which often bears the marks of political nihilism.

Nonetheless, almost a century after his death, Pareto’s books command respect among even those critics and scholars who are the least inclined to accept his political ideas. Also, one of these days, the influence Pareto exerted on his contemporary as well as future disciples must be examined. Of course, the names of Gustave Le Bon, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, and later Joseph Schumpeter and Raymond Aron quickly come to mind.[16]

1]Guillaume Faye, ‘Pareto “doxanalyste”, ’Nouvelle École, no. 36, Summer 1981, pp. 73-80.
[5]Vilfredo Pareto,op. cit., vol. 1, p. 310
[6]Ibid., vol. 1, p. 317.
[10]Vilfredo Pareto, ‘Danger of Socialism’, p. 127.
[11]Vilfredo Pareto,Les systèmes,pp. 38-39.
[12]Ibid., especially on p. 67.
[16]Pareto’s writings influenced an entire generation of thinkers and politicians, who in a similar vein attempted to demonstrate that so-called democratic states carry the germs of their own destruction. This includes Gaetano Mosca,The Ruling Class(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939); Robert Michels,Political Parties(New York: Dover Publications, 1959); and especially Gustave Le Bon,Psychologie politique(Paris: Les Amis de Gustave Le Bon, 1984) andThe Crowd(New York: Viking Press, 1960). On p. 314 ofPsychologie politique, Le Bon writes, ‘Clergy, socialists, anarchists, etc., are close varieties of the same psychological specimen. Their soul is bent under the weight of similar illusions. They have an identical mentality, cherish the same things, and respond to the same needs with hardly different means’.

Tomislav Sunic
Agains Democracy and Equality