i forward here the philofhi response to my yesterday msg because
the author while not using ws-terminology (and maybe even not acquainted well
this WST) focuses attention to the very essence of curious symbiosis between
legal, democratic and humanistic CORE and non-legal, 'feodal'(frequently based
on violence and coersion) PERIPHERY
best, Nikolai
From: klaatu <root@earthops.org>
To: philofi@yorku.ca
My remarks are at end of the letter.
> Subject: Kant's alternative (About a New World Order)
>=20
>=20
> From: Nikolai S. Rozov <ROZOV@CNIT.NSU.RU>
> To: PHILOFHI@YORKU.CA
>=20
> In 1784 Kant suggested the idea of legal world order, with preservation o=
f
> sovereign states and realizing global security, peace and justice. Kant
> named this global order great Nations Union (grosen Volkersbund), and,
> following Greek tradition: Foedus Amphictionum (smth like union of tribes
> that swear on sacred place to subordinate to common accepted laws).=20
>=20
> Now besides global security we have problems of economic gap,
> environment, etc.=20
>=20
> For writing and realizing necessary corresponding laws we really need:=20
>=20
> 1) global parlament (can be easely created within UN),
> 2) global hyerarchy and network of courts (can be created on the base of =
such
> patterns as Gaague, Court of Justice, and national courts)
> 3) agreement of Interpol, national polices, NATO
> and other major military forces (Russian, Chinese, West-European, Indi=
an,
> Brasilian, Islamic) to respect and if necessary to realize decisions
> of international courts of justice
>=20
> 4) neutralizing, or, better, making a coalition with Systemic Elits (G-7,
> TNC, IMF, EU, NAFTA, APEC, etc) by means of projecting and transforming
> their interests and strategies
>=20
> (i realize that 3 & 4 are terribly complicate tasks, probably for decades=
)
>=20
> Both Stalinist socialism and worst predator manifestations of capitalism
> (in colonies, modern Africa, South America, new Russia) have a curious
> common feature - neglecting legal order based on human rights for "all
> rational beings". But it is namely the thing that Immanuel Kant promoted!=
=20
>=20
I have noticed recently that what you call "worst predator manifistations o=
f
capitalism" do indeed have common features of neglecting legal order. But I
would draw a comparison between these "predator manifestations" which are
characterized by corruption, wide stratifications of classes, and so forth =
-
with Feudalism. I have been so struck by the similarities that I feel I can=
not
sufficiently draw attention to this.
Feudalism, and for that matter much of transnational corporate culture
(including organized crime) is characterized not by Rule of Law or by
religious or political ideology, but is instead characterized by loyalties =
to
persons ("cult of personality"); defense of "turf" or territory (in the cas=
e
of Feudalism it was physical territory, in transnational corporate feudalis=
m
the territory is "market niche"); extreme separation of classes, each of wh=
ich
has a definite position and specific rights and responsibilities which proc=
eed
only from the relationship to other persons - there is no defined
Constitution, and the roles of each caste or class can be immediately
re-defined by the Authority, be that Authority a Duke or a Chief Executive
Officer. This is an extreme contrast to the Rule of Law/Rights of Man ideol=
ogy
and mindset. But it strikes me as also true that such Feudalisms can exist
only within the framework of a Rule of Law/Rights of Man superstructure. In=
a
purely Feudalist structure, the economic system will tend to collapse, sinc=
e
to retain one's relationship with Persons of Authority, one must expend
disproportionate amounts of investment, as bribes or payoffs, or as
expenditures for troops/security. Nothing would be accomplished and chaos
would rule, not as a result of anarchy, but because of intense competition
between armed bands operating as pack-predators, practically as family armi=
es.=20
I would support this argument by pointing out that Feudalism occurred withi=
n
the Christian framework, which posited the Rule of (God's) Law and the Righ=
ts
of Man (if only in final judgement before God); Transnational Corporate
Feudalism requires the Rule of Law since the vast majority of their dispute=
s
are settled in an adversarial manner by "champions" (attorneys in litigatio=
n)
and without the concept of Rights of Man, they might have difficulties with
filling the lower-echelon positions. In particular, criminal transnational
corporations (international organized crime) requires the Rule of Law becau=
se
one of their prime requirements for operation is their ability to hold thei=
r
victims helpless through the victims' fear - should the victims transgress =
the
laws to protect themselves, they would be doubly in jeopardy, hunted by bot=
h
the criminals and the police. Also, the Rule of Law allows them to extend t=
his
personal-relationships requirement through bribes and payoffs to compromise=
d
officials, increasing the victims' fears of potential risks should they ban=
d
together to defend themselves.
Can much recent history be seen as the result of interplays between Feudali=
st
motifs and Humanist motifs? Is it reasonable to make the comparison between
Feudalism and the emerging Transnational-Corporate powers?
In item (4) above, you note that there must be co-ordination and compromise=
s
between various international elites such as G7, NAFTA, etc - but this in m=
y
view would be catering to Feudalistic tropisms, although interstingly those
tropisms or movements are the result of Rule of Law incentives perhaps
designed to pre-place a controlled Feudalistic power before natural economi=
c
forces might force the emergence on a non-Rule-of-Law power which must
necessarily evolve to fill a power-vacuum. Perhaps this may be sufficient
neutralization for now.
regards,=20
klaatu@clark.net
root@earthops.org