Conclusion

The book’s conclusion insists that we must not start with the question of ‘what should we do differently?’ but rather ‘how might we think differently (about peacemaking in civil war)?’ Having rebuffed solutions of crude design and the dangers of reducing politics to modes of making, there can be no neat and easy answers. Inspired by what the Postscript allows us to see differently, and alongside the book’s core arguments critically appraising the failures of peacemaking in the Sudans over two decades, the conclusion underscores that a different kind of thinking about what politics is and what it demands of us is essential in order to move beyond the tragedy inherent in contemporary peacemaking practice. Only with such thinking, for which the conclusion provokes some new beginnings drawing from ideas on negotiated revolutions and civic republicanism, can other ways of acting in the world become clear and make their claim amidst the unavoidably messy make-do realities of peacemaking in civil wars.

Introduction

The original goal of socialism in Britain was to supersede “politics” and achieve a non-governmental form of collective life. This Introduction argues for approaching the period between 1817 and 1918 as a “socialist century,” demarcated, respectively, by Robert Owen’s introduction of his first socialist “Plan” and the Labour Party’s adoption of its first constitution and party program. Adopting this approach brings into view a tradition of anti-political socialist activism that spans the century. But the particular purpose of Imagining Socialism is to disclose and elucidate the role the aesthetic concepts and modalities play in subtending the heterogeneous anti-political experiments it investigates. In so doing, this study reveals unexpected commonalities between what are often treated as discontinuous and even antithetical stages of socialist activity. The Introduction also elucidates this study’s central theoretical terms and defines its central object of study by distinguishing socialism from several adjacent traditions (including liberalism, civic republicanism, and Marxian communism). Finally, it argues that socialism is best conceived as a goal to be imagined, rather than a readymade ideological program to be imposed.

Trump, Neoconservatives, and the Misrepresentation of the American Founding

This chapter evaluates the neoconservative anti-Trumpers who view the Trump presidency as a betrayal of America's founding principles. These detractors have been especially critical of nationalist populism and its rejection of “globalist” policies like free trade, foreign interventionism, and immigration. The chapter argues that neoconservatives misunderstand America's principles as a nation because they have relied heavily on certain sources, starting with the view of the American founding taught by the followers of Leo Strauss. This view overemphasizes Lockean natural rights and the merits of commercial acquisitiveness. Absent from this neoconservative analysis is an appreciation of three tenets of James Madison's political thinking, each of which accords with nationalist populism: civic republicanism, intergenerational duty to ancestors and posterity, and a warning that too much diversity will lead to a plutocratic oppression of society through a politics of divide and conquer. Although neoconservatives may have personal reasons to criticize the presidency of Donald Trump, their argument from the American founding is not particularly convincing.

Dominium and The Empire of Laws

Civic republicanism endorses a freedom ideology that can support the corporate social responsibility movement [CSR] in some of the challenges it faces. This article is a call for CSR to embrace this normative guidance as a superior alternative to mainstream liberalism. Part I is the introduction. Part II discusses the institutional changes that gave rise to CSR’s present incarnation. Part III builds upon this discussion, explaining how corporate risk management strategies pose a threat to CSR’s persuasive authority today. It then considers CSR’s options for enhancing governance when such persuasive authority is not available. It determines that inspiring integrity – above all else – is integral to success and that, in turn, the removal of moral distance is key to inspiring such integrity. It also notes that whether a form of coercive authority exists or not to back a governance mechanism, the removal of moral distance will be key to its effectiveness. Part IV notes that efforts to remove moral distance have been attempted since the 1970s, but time has proven that business actors have been resilient to meaningful change. It argues that this failure to reduce moral distance is, in part, the result of mainstream liberalism, which continues to nullify such efforts to make business actors feel more accountable for the impacts of their decision-making. It then explores liberalism, detangling the meaning of possibly the most contested, and normatively powerful, concept from the twentieth century to the present. Part V explains civic republicanism. It then explores civic republicanism’s conceptual proximity to liberalism. Part VI makes the case for why civic republicanism ought to amend the liberal message, recasting the rights and responsibilities of both imperium (that is, the authority of the sovereign) and dominium (that is, the private authority usually emanating from property and contract) within society. Part VII concludes with a short reflection on the ground covered.

Socialist Republicanism

Socialist republicans advocate public ownership and control of the means of production in order to achieve the republican goal of a society without endemic domination. While civic republicanism is often attacked for its conservatism, the relatively neglected radical history of the tradition shows how a republican form of socialism provides powerful conceptual resources to critique capitalism for leaving workers and citizens dominated. This analysis supports a programme of public ownership and economic democracy intended to reduce domination in the workplace and wider society. I defend this socialist republicanism from both the Marxist objection that it overlooks the impersonal nature of domination under capitalism and the left-liberal objections that property-owning democracy or worker codetermination are sufficient to suppress dominating relationships. The resulting position identifies the need for more ambitious institutional grounds for republican liberty than is often supposed, while offering us a distinctive emancipatory justification for socialism.

The Virtues of Military Politics

Sociologists and political scientists have long fretted over the dangers that a politicized military poses to democracy. In recent times, however, civil–military relations experts in the United States accepted retired or indeed still serving generals and admirals in high-ranking political posts. Despite customary revulsion from scholars, the sudden waivers are an indicator that military participation in momentous national security decisions is inherently political without necessarily being partisan, including when civilian authority defers to a largely autonomous sphere for objective military expertise. Military politics is actually critical for healthy civil–military collaboration, when done prudently and moderately. Janowitz and Huntington, founders of the modern study of civil–military relations, understood the U.S. military’s inevitable invitation to political influence. Here, we elaborate on two neglected dimensions, implicit in their projects, of military politics under objective civilian control based on classical virtues of civic republicanism: Aristotle’s practical wisdom and Machiavelli’s virtú.