It's my answer to Chris Chase-Dunn:
>From: chris chase-dunn <chriscd@jhu.edu>:
>Nikolai Rosov (sorry Chris, my name is RoZov)
>suggests:
>
> 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.
>
>ok. lets call it a multipolar partnership, not a world state. fine. how
>can we make this happen?
There are two main sides here:
a) a principal strategy that must be historically and/or theoretically
based, and
b) organizational tactics based on given conjuncture of political-social
forces, probable finance resources, already existing organizations, current
ideological patterns and even personal relations
I will discuss here only the primary sketch of the point (a)
The results of comparative analysis of success-nonsuccess of
national political-economic reforms in France and Russia (XVIII-XX) made by
one Russian historian showed the following necessary options:
1) to split ruling elite that benefits from existing situation, and to
get support from 'new' part of ruling elit which hopes to ameliorate its
position by reform and winning over 'old' elit
2) to block up for active reactionary policy of 'old' elit in initial
period
to show people the advantages of reform for their life and starvings,
to manage to interpret all misfortunes as effects of 'old evil' that should
be eliminated by the reform,
4) to organize adequate channels of information and political action
5) to begin to solve crucial problems (distribution of resourses,
power, etc) only after gaining so large political and public support that
main state institutions and military forces take the side of reform in order
not to occur in the camp of losers
Extrapolation of this strategy from national to global level
seems to me possible if we make the following replacements:
'old elit' - those TNC, with supporting them governmental, finance
institutions of the core and international organizations that mostly win from
inequality, exploitation, pollutive industries, arms races and production,
wars, etc
'new elit' - those TNC (with their supporting political and financial
forces!) that can win from legal narrowing of frames of action for 'old elit';
new elit is more interested in appearing of wide middle class (as mass
consumers) in poor countries, in spread of ecological, medicine,
educaive, etc. industry, in conversion of arms production
world-wide!) versions. Each new national ideology should show how this
given nation (US or Russia, or UK, or Japan) win from new legal international
order. At the same time all these national ideologies must be mutually
compatible on the base of some hidden but theoretically based global
standards and values (see the msg of Chris Robinson and my answer to him)
'new popular leader' - here, friends, I cannot imagine anything better
then to work on new candidates of national leaders (Presidents, congressmen,
deputates, etc.) that will make new global legal order and correspondent
nat.ideology a center of their political programs, It is not also impossible
to work with current national leaders, remember how Aurelio Peccei with his
Club of Roma managed to work so successfully with leaders of Austria, Sweden
and other European countries on ecological issues;
'channels of information and political action': Internet seems to
efficient mainly for initial work of intellectuals sitting in
universities: program making, planning and coordination. Internet and
academic work can and should be used also for 'public academic monitoring of
national policies and international institutions'. This issue I plan to
discuss in my answer to Bruce McFarling concerning 'how to change IMF'.
At the same time, the work with electorate requires TV and newspapers
that means necessity of strategic alliance with correspondent 'new' financial
and political forces standing behind these mass-media means
'main state institutions'(on national level) - governments, parlaments,
international institutions (such as EU, NAFTA, WTO, int. courts - on global
level)
'military forces' - mainly NATO and US forces, but interests,
proportions and trends of growth of national forces of nuclear countries
(f.e. China) must be also taken into account
So in most fortunate scenario I expect not less than 5-10 years of mere
propaganda, coalition-making, network-making and work in elections.
Only after having 'new' leaders in majority of core states (f.e. in B-7)
(as presidents or rather srong and representative opposition) it will be
possible to realize new legal standards. One hidden but most significant part
of these new agreements will be a new division of the world and here I follow
the brilliant idea of Bruce concerning non-overlapping of fields of interst
between main core powers.
Once again, dear Chris and Warren and other left-oriented wsn-ers,
any 'antisystemic' ideology or movement only rallies (fastens) the
existing 'system' (and ALL elit as its head).
To split the system, to split the global elit, i.e. to get in our side
a vast coalition including 'systemic' political and financial forces - this is
the only way to more humanistic future!
best regards, 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