This post is in reference to Nikolai Rozov's suggestion that transnational
companies, nation-states and social movements are all "instruments of
expansion" in Quigley's sense today. I agree with the proposition that
"instruments of expansion" are generally heterogeneous. I doubt that "social
movements" currently function as Quigleyan instruments; states (I'd rather
not call them "nation-states," since they generally aren't) and parastatals
do to some extent serve that function; corporations, as much transient as
transnational (plus currently somewhat more localized pension funds, mutual
funds, and stock markets), probably have the preponderant role.
Persons interested in the corporate complex, who take Quigley
seriously, should be exploring the ways in which this instrumental form might
become "institutionalized" in Quigley's terms ("corrupted" or "diverted" from
investment in invention, most commonly by insiders, but sometimes by
outsiders, who siphon off profits to increase their own consumption at the
expense of reinvestment). There are plenty of candidates.
Persons similarly interested in the state complex, and taking Quigley
seriously, might usefull examine the rundown to collapse of the Soviet Union,
the current difficulties in North Korea and Cuba, and the reform problems of
China and Vietnam, in the light of Quigley's discussions of the crises of
"institutionalization" and their alternative resolutions.
Those writers who have identified themselves as "libertarians," whether
individualist or communalist, have a somewhat different problem.
Very successful individual entrepreneurs tend to destroy the social
environment that allowed them to succeed; they seem to leave as their
legacies bureaucratic corporations, not collections of entrepreneurialized
individuals. Fairly successful individual entrepreneurs may tend to leave
behind dysfunctional family businesses, dependent upon their autocratic
leadership, which soon disperse. Very successful communes (not many) tend to
lose their morale after a few generations, and turn into corporations
(Oneida, Amana). Their apparently strong propensities to dissolve or to
incorporate are what lead me to question Nikolai Rozov's reference to "social
movements" as currently, or prospectively, plausible "instruments of
expansion." To obstruct and deflect tendencies to corporatization or
dissolution, and to sustain expansion, it seems to me a rather stern ethos
would be required, almost a religious discipline. As regards the discipline,
the Shakers, Amish, and Benedictines come to mind; but I believe these groups
were interested in economic sufficiency rather than prosperity. There may
well be some current religious groups which do persist (vs. disperse or
incorporate) and expand (in per capita income, not just numbers) while
maintaining individualistic and/or communalistic economic practices; it would
be interesting to discuss them. Are there any secular exemplars?