Michael Spagat: Reviewing "Slouching Towards Utopia" & Defending þe Honor of Norman Angell on Twitter

2022-09-19 Mo

Michael Spagat: ’This hardly qualifies as BigTime wrong but I do think that you’re a bit harsh on Norman Angell although it Idoes seem plausible that his is the saddest book on your shelf. As you say, on the eve of WW Angell argued that war was stupid and that everyone would lose. He sensed a big war in the air and was writing to try to stop it. I think, though, that he had a pretty good sense of what he was up against. He quotes one warmonger after another, many in positions of great power, and tries to expose the weaknesses in their arguments. He does such a great job of this, at least for a modern reader, that I almost quite on his book recently because it seemed like he belaboured his argument to the point of tedium: Conquest is counterproductive. Economic progress is available through peaceful cooperation. He makes the argument standing on one leg, standing on his head, hanging from a tree branch, etc.

But why the overkill?

I think the answer lies in the fact that he saw scores of influential people all around him still in thrall to the Great Illusion. That is, he was fighting a desperate uphill battle. It’s true that at times he does seem succumb to an optimistic view that people will finally get it. I think that this is the origin of the stain permanently affixed to Angell’s reputation claiming that he predicted the impossibility of future war right before WWI broke out. You don’t quite say this but I think that your interpretation tends in this direction.

It’s also true that for people trained in a rational choice tradition, as we certainly were in economics, it’s a small step to say that people will avoid doing something that will harm them. In this vein, here’s a prediction that Putin won’t invade Ukraine because doing so would be a boneheaded move:

Barbara F Walter: "When I game out Putin’s strategy on Ukraine it always ends with continued brinksmanship, no war. He gets to feed nationalism at home and use the threat of war to bargain abroad. Invasion and a costly occupation leaves him much worse off and Putin knows this…

And it was a boneheaded move - that part was right. But, sadly, he did it anyway.

My point is simply that we should distinguish between:

1. an argument that starting a war would be stupid, and

2. an argument that war is impossible.

Angell occasionally slipped from 1 to 2 but, broadly, I think that he saw the danger of a big war and made a cogent case to prevent it, albeit to no avail (so, yes, it’s the saddest book on your shelf).

LINK:

Michael Spagat @Michael_Spagat

1. This hardly qualifies as BigTime wrong but I do think that you're a bit harsh on Norman Angell although it does seem plausible that his is the saddest book on your shelf. @delong

Brad DeLong 🖖 @delong

@Michael_Spagat But you haven't yet told me what I have gotten BigTime wrong here...