Thank you Richard for sharing with us your brave and wide-scope ideas
on the new fair world.
Sometimes ago Richard's localism seemed to me suspicious but
now you have removed these doubts. In spite of author's refusal
the 4th chapter is essentially utopian, but it is not bad at all
because Utopia is one one of most intellectually and ideologically
powerful cultural traditions in history.
I would like to put
Richard's version of international Utopia into intellectual
tradition. We know at least three basic paradigms: a liberal one,
presented by Adam Smith in his book on richness of nations, an
isolationist paradigm that from my viepoint is presented best of all
by Fichte's "A Closed Trade State", and via media - a confederative
paradigm, presented by Kant in his 'Idea of Universal History..." and
the tractatus on "Eternal Peace".
I support Richard's balanced theses on international trade that
indicate this version of Utopia to belong to Kantian, not Fichtean
tradition (the last was in fact realized in international politics of
communist countries - the Northern Korea with its chuchkhe is the
last bastion).
The next question is how this version of Utopia relates to
known deep essential and trends of world development. In my book 'The
Structure of Civilization and the World Development Trends" (1992, in
Russian), I have outlined three main megatrends (stable complexes of
positive reinforcing conncetions between trends from various
societal spheres):
the Megatrend 1: the Westernization and Globalization
(or the 'Smithonian' ) megatrend, which is the main target for
Richard's criticisms;
the Megatrend 2: the international isolationism combined with
domestic authoritarianism and repressions; nationalism,
fundamentalism, extremist 'patriotism' belong also to this stream
(one can compare it with Fichtean 'Closed State');
the Megatrend 3: multipolar partnership and change of direction of
technoeconomic development ((the Kantian line)
I wrote the the Third Megatrend is still rather weak, presented
mainly in writings and heads of intellectuals. Sure i subscribe to
the Third Megatrend and i am glad that similar ideas emerge
again and again independantly.
That's why i think we are allies with Richard in principle and
instead splitting hairs on minor contradictions in views it would be
better to focus on the crucial problems of realization (rise of the
Third Megatrend in my terms).
Why indeed so nice ideas are not realized? we can gues that they
contradict some deep and essential traits of the very nature of human
societies and powerful social groups. It is a very large topic and
what i wish to do here is only to focus attention on three
prominent modern theoretical approaches: world-system analysis
(Wallerstein, Frank, Arrighi, Chase-Dunn, et al), geopolitics
(especially Collins), and environmental problems (resources'
exhaustion, pollution, etc).
WS-analysis tells about inevitable hierachization in any
international market system. Indeed, semiperiphery 'sees' richness of
the core and will do everything to gain the similar level (in spite
of all moralistic utopian sermons). In the very core TNCs exploit
periphery not (only) to become more rich, but in context of a very
tough (mortal?!) struggle between themselves. It is also well known
that not only TNC's but both powerful state elits and all population
(common people) of core democratic state are also objectively
interested in exploitation of periphery ("South America is a place
where our bananas grow").
Even more severe is geopolitical(GP) reality. Collins
demonstrated that inevitable shifts in GP resources (population and
richness) sooner or later lead to changes (spread-contraction) in
territorial power of states. It means 'natural' waves of expansion,
endless weapon races, strenghth of military and military-industrial
elits in all societies, etc.
I analysed theoretically possible interplay between escalation of
environmental crisis and geoeconomic, geopolitical, geocultural
areas. The result was strengthening of positive, not negative
(balancing and neutralizing) connections. It means that future
ecological crises will lead to more severe exploitation, more
severe geopolitical behavior of nations, more severe ideological
struggle.
What should be a strategy for realization any global preoject
of 'livable and sustainable societies' (f.e. Richard's one) in the
context of geoeconomic and geopolitical realities outlined above?
isn't it a central question for theoretically oriented design of
global praxis?
best from Siberia,
Nikolai
******************************************************
Nikolai S. Rozov, PhD, Dr.Sc. Professor of Philosophy
E-MAIL: rozov@nsu.ru FAX: 7-3832-397101
ADDRESS: Philosophy Dept. Novosibirsk State University
630090, Novosibirsk, Pirogova 2, RUSSIA
Welcome to PHILOFHI (the mailing list for PHILosophy OF HIstory and
theoretical history)
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe/philofhi.html
and
Philosophy of History Archive (PHA)
http://www.nsu.ru/filf/pha/
*********************************************************************