Thanks to David Wilkinson for attention to the idea that is not still evident
to myself.
I confess that I use Quigley's term 'instrument of expansion' in more wide
(not only economic) and strictly neutral (not negative!) sense.
That's why 'expansion' for me is not only territorial or similar
extension but also extension (expansion) of control over various social,
cultural, political, ideological, educational, etc. areas within given
civilization and among other civilizations.
What is the origin of modern democracy (f e one person - one vote
principle), state social programs,
male-female legal balance, state ecological departments and
programs, recent defence of various minorities, etc.etc. in Western
civilization?
I think in all cases we can find historical social movements (borgeious
political movements and parties, Enlightment, worker socialist movements,
social democracy movements, feminism, ecological movements like Club of Rome,
sexual minorities movements, ethnical movements, etc.)
Did many of them institualize into parties, state departments and
programs, international organizations, etc?
Yes.
Did they expand their control over legal systems, world-views, education?
In general - yes (more or less in different cases).
Did Western civilization changed its image significantly because of
activity and institualization of such movements?
Certainly.
these changes in pro-Western propagand and for expansion of Western culture,
politics, economic system among all other civilizations?
Sure.
Why then not to name these movements 'instruments of expansion'?
My best regards, Nikolai
> From: "Wilkinson, David POLI SCI" <wilkinso@polisci.sscnet.ucla.edu>
> To: ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru
> Cc: * World Systems Network <wsn@csf.Colorado.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Fw: A wake-up call to libertarians
> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 96 19:47:00 PST
>
> 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?
>
>
> Nikolai S. Rozov
Professor of Philosophy
Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI
(PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history)
http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe
/philofhi.html
Dept. of Philosophy
Novosibirsk State University Fax.: (3832) 355237
630090, Novosibirsk E-mail: rozov@cnit.nsu.ru
Pirogova 2
RUSSIA