강유원의 북리스트 | 정치철학(8) #Miller 19쪽

 

「강유원의 북리스트」에서 제공하는 《정치철학》을 듣고 정리한다.

팟캐스트 주소: https://www.podbean.com/premium-podcast/booklist

 

2022.08.28 정치철학(8) #Miller

018 예를 들어 독일의 나치 정권[체제]과 그 정권[체제]에 의해 살해된 600만 명의 유대인이나, 마오쩌둥의 중국과 이른바 '대약진운동' 때문에 야기된 기근으로 죽은 2000만명 이상의 사람들에 대해 생각해보라. 
006 think about the Nazi regime in Germany and the 6 million Jews who were killed by it, or think about Mao's China and the 20 million or more who died as a result of the famine induced by the so-called 'Great Leap Forward'. 

어떤 체제를 선택하느냐에 따라서 사람들의 삶이 다르다는 것을 보여주는 아주 전형적인 사례이다.
프랑크 디쾨터라는 학자가 쓴 《마오의 대기근》, 현대 중국에 관한한 거의 끝판왕의 책.
나치체제를 보면 결국에는 그것을 선택한 사람들의 잘못이다. 외부에서 침략해서 들어온 것도 아니고 바이마르 공화국의 국민들이 선택한 것, 그러니까 어떤 체제를 선택하느냐에 따라서 사람들의 삶이 어떠한가를 보여주는 가장 극악무도한 사례가 나치라고 할 수 있다.

019 20세기 역사는 로렌체티의 벽화에서 드러나는 뚜렷한 대조를 거의 정확하게 재현한 것처럼 여겨진다.
006 Twentieth century history seems to have reproduced the stark contrast of Lorenzetti's mural almost exactly. 

019 그러나 이 대목에서 우리는 앞의 세 가지 관념 가운데 둘째 관념을 살펴봐야 한다. 
006 But at this point we have to consider the second of our three ideas. 

둘째 관념은 13페이지의 "둘째 관념은 우리의 정부 형태가 미리 결정되어 있지 않다는 것이다. 우리는 선택할 수 있다." 정부 형태를 선택할 수 있는가에 대해서 살펴보자는 것이다. 그런데 19페이지를 보다보면 정부 형태를 선택할 수 있는가를 문제 삼는데, 사실 정부 형태를 선택할 수 없는 경우가 없다. 

019 비록 다른 형태의 정부들이 번영과 빈곤, 삶과 죽음의 직접적 원인이었고 또 여전히 그렇다고 하더라도, 우리는 우리를 지배하는[통제되는] 정권[체제]에 어느 정도나 영향을 미칠 수 있는가?
006 Even if different forms of government were, and still are, direct causes of prosperity and poverty, life and death, how far are we able to influence the regimes that govern us? 

영향을 미칠 수 있다. 그런데 그 조건이 있다. 지금 여기서는 그 조건을 생각하지 않고 곧바로 마르크스주의라든가 역사순환론이라든가 이쪽으로 가버렸다. 이 서술에 조금 문제가 있다. 뭐냐하면 우리는 "우리를 지배하는 체제에 어느 정도나 영향을 미칠 수 있는가?" 물음 이전에 물어야 할 것이 있다. 우리는 우리를 지배하는 체제를 선택할 수 있는가의 문제가 일단 있다. 체제에 우리가 영향을 미친다는 것을 물어보면 전혀 영향을 미치지 못하는 경우도 있다. 즉 어떤 체제가 더 나은 것인지 또는 폭압적인 체제, 그런 경우에는 영향을 미치기 어렵다. 그러니까 영향을 미칠 수 있다고 하면 이어지는 얘기들이 숙명론적 견해가 있고, 역사의 진보의 견해가 있고, 마르크스주의적인 역사 필연론이 있다. 우리 인간이 정치공동체[체제]에 어떤 영향을 미칠 수 있게 된 것은 지극히 예외적인 몇몇 사례를 제외한다면 그리 오래되지 않은 역사이다. 그러니까 어느 정도 언제부터 영향을 미칠 수 있는가 라는 물음은 그 물음이 성립할 수 있었던 시기가 그리 오래되지 않았다는 것을 전제할 필요가 있다. 일단 둘로 나눠야 한다. 선택을 할 수 있는 경우와 선택을 할 수 없는 경우, 그 다음에 선택을 할 수 있는 경우에는 어떤 식으로 선택을 하는가 라고 물음을 둘로 나누어야 할 것 같다.

019 또 이러한 정권[체제]은 우리가 전혀 통제할 수 없는 좀더 심층적인 원인에 의해 지배되는 사슬의 연결고리일 뿐인가?
006 Or are they just links in a chain, themselves governed by deeper causes over which we have no control? 

019 만약 그렇다면, 우리가 최선의 정부 형태를 선택할 수 있도록 도와주는 것이 자신의 목적이라고 공언하는 정치철학에는 무슨 의의가 있는가?
006 And if so, what is the point of political philosophy, whose avowed purpose is to help us choose the best form of government? 

019 인간은 그 어떤 [참된] 정치적 선택도 할 수 없다는 숙명론적 견해는 역사 속에서 서로 다른 시기에 서로 다른 형태로 나타났다.
006 The fatalistic view that we have no real political choices to make has appeared in different forms at different times in history. 

우리가 우리를 지배하는 체제에 어느 정도나 영향을 미칠 수 있는가를 물어보려면 인간이라는 존재가 자신이 살고 있는 정치적 공동체를 자율적으로 또는 자의를 가지고 선택할 수 있는 시기라는 것에서만 유의미한 질문이다. 과거에는 그런 것들을 전혀 생각해보지 못했던 시대가 아주 오랫동안 계속해왔었다.

019 로렌체티가 프레스코화를 그리던 시대에 많은 사람들이 역사는 순환적으로 움직인다고 믿었다. 
006 In the period when Lorenzetti was painting his frescos, many believed that history moved in cycles: 


019 좋은 정부는 오래 지속될 수 없으며, 시간이 지날수록 불가피하게 퇴락하여 결국 폭정으로 몰락하고, 오직 더디게 이어지는 단계들을 통해서만 그 최선의 형태로 되돌아간다는 것이다. 
006 good government could not endure, but would inevitably become corrupted with the passage of time, collapse into tyranny, and only through slow stages be brought back to its best form. 

폴리비오스, 역사는 순환으로 움직인다. 동양에서는 역사순환론이 거의 정설. 맹자, 일치일란. 

019 다른 시대━가장 두드러지게는 19세기━에는 역사의 진보라는 관념이 지배적이었다. 
006 In other periods━most notably the 19th century━the prevailing belief was in the idea of historical progress: