31 Jul 96 17:36:57 NSK-6
From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" <ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru>
Organization: Center of New Informational Tech.
To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:36:39 -0600 (NSK)
Subject: Re: the world party
Dear Chris,
completely supporting you in peaceful and humanistic aspirations
I need an answer for the following questions and comments
> From: chris chase-dunn <chriscd@jhu.edu>
>
> the problem is to create a monopoly of
> legitimate violence.
even if this statement is accepted you cannot deduce from it the necessity of
world state and even world party (such party will be strongly associated
with starving for world power with all negative sequences),
there is another alternative: to preserve monopoly of legitimate
violence of nation-states (or their united regional forces) on their
territories but only if these states (or unions) are appropriate to definite
globally accepted values and correspondent legal standards
(see my yesterday reply to Chris Robinson).
So not a world party but maximally wide coalition of all kinds of social,
political, economic, and cultural(f.e. religious) forces is needed for
working out and accepting this set of values and standards.
A world state is not necessary to make nation- states to respect
these standards; if a wide coalition of core and semiperipheral nations
subscribe to these values and legal standards, the threat of global economic,
political, and cultural ostrakism will be more efficient and much less
dangerous than world state for shifting to global totalitarianism
>this because one of the main unsolved and cyclical
> products of capitalism is warfare.
this traditional Marxian thesis is by no means evident now and needs serious
argumentation, I would be grateful if you share it with us, at least in main
points.
Were there in the world less warfare before capitalism? (even if to date
capitalism since Phoenicians as you did in the book 'Comparing W-Systems')
Diakonoff communicates that in 3-1 millenia BC in all Central civilization
even merchants going to foreign countries with very peaceful purposes had no
such notion as 'foreign country'. ENEMIES COUNTRY was the only existing
concept that times!
to struggle now for ceasing warfare - yes, but to hope that having
destoyed capitalism we solve this problem seems to me now very naive. In the
eve of XX Bolshevics in Russia just in this way hoped that they cease
ALL warfare, ALL exploitation, ALL corrupcy, ALL classes, ALL crimes,
ALL prostitution, and even adulter by destroying capitalism, because they
considered all these sins to be its products.
To think so in the end of XX ? - strange...
> there is not likely to emerge
> a world state strong enough to prevent a war among core states in the
> next twenty five years even if we try very hard, which we should do.
yes, but why nothing was sayed on nuclear disarmament and possibilities to
use existance of subjectivity of core-states leaders, governments, public
opinion, electorate?
You talk on wars and Kondrattieffs presumes doctrine of historicism (fairly
criticised by K.Popeer in 'The Poverty of Historicism') as some objective
historical course independant of epiphenomenal human consciousness.
I suggest to discuss the the legal world order
(including tax policy, custom policy,investment policy, etc) that
makes gradually arms production and trade non-profitable, but ecological,
medicine, educational production more and more profitable.
In parallel a wide propaganda should begin for persuading leaders
and peoples not to raise but to contract armaments, to subordinate ALL
military operations ONLY to the judgements of international Court acting in
the framework of globally accepted legal order.
Is it a very difficult task? - yes it is, but not more than to manage to
construct over nations a world state with all needed monopolies, or to
legitimate prolongation and to give such monopolies to US hegemony.
>
> given the high probability of nuclear annihilation, that means looking
> hard at possible substitutes for the world state. one possibility, though
> it may not be much more likely than a world state, is a renewed US
> hegemony. yes folks. that is what i said. this is a hard conclusion
> for someone who spent his youth opposing US imperialism. talk me out of
> it.
US has too deeply rooted tradition for double standards concerning the care of
America with US-citizens, and peoples of all other world. The last feel
it rather well and that's why this idea will hardly go.
Why not to discuss multi-polar partnership with monopoly for legitime
military operations based on accepting global legal standards? I would not
even argue against the leading role of US in this partnership, but
such political, military, economic forces of EU, Japan, Russia, China, India,
Brasilia, South Africa, maybe Turkey, Egypt, and Iran (as leaders of
correspondent geopolitical regions) should be necessarely presented in this
partnership.
US hegemony?
my best regards, yours Nikolai
Nikolai S. Rozov # Address:Dept. of Philosophy
Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University
rozov@cnit.nsu.ru # 630090, Novosibirsk
Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA
Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI
(PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history)
http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe
/philofhi.html