Who is winning at the new stage of globalization?

On November 22, 2013 a conference held by the international non-profit organization “New Youth Policy” took place at the Russian Centre of Science and Culture in Brussels. The subject: “Globalization — the new stage”. Participants had the opportunity to view presentations on the topics of what is globalization itself as a process, and what are the currently existing scenarios of globalization: the currently dominating, Eastern (Chinese and Japanese) and Russian.

Yuriy Bodrov, advisor-representative of the Ambassador of the Russian Federation in the Kingdom of Belgium, had given the introductory speech at the conference:

“Dear colleagues, first of all I would like to thank you for the invitation to your conference. Alexander Romanov, the Russian Ambassador in the Kingdom of Belgium, asked me to send the best wishes from foreign affairs minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov.

You have chosen a very interesting topic for today’s conference. Globalization is an objective, but ambiguous process. It definitely makes our world more interdependent, but in some aspects, unfortunately, less predictable.

Globalization, in a certain measure, paradoxically correlates with regionalization. Before our eyes, integrational processes are speeding up in many regions of the world. Particularly, they sometimes lead to transfer of some national authority to the supranational level, and the most apparent example of this phenomenon, as of today, is the European Union. Integrational processes are actively developing in Eurasia, primarily within the Customs Union and Common Economic Space of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. By January 1, 2015, our countries plan to create the Eurasian Economic Union, which will represent a more advanced level of integration and will serve as a sort-of center of attraction of states, primarily those belonging to the Commonwealth of Independent States. Already, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia have voiced their wish to join this union.

We are also ready to draw closer Eurasian entities and the European Union, with the aim of realizing the noble idea of creating a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Naturally, on one condition: at the base of this process should lie the principle of equality and mutual respect.”

Mr. Bodrov noted, that globalization, even though it leads to a known unification of technological processes, however, does not lead to the disappearance of cultural and civilizational diversity of the modern world:

“In the cultures of civilizations, objectively existing on our planet, there are certain stable elements, which do not mix. Among these elements is religion. This way, globalization has different aspects, and the development of our world will depend on how these aspects are correlated.”

On a pleasant note, running slightly ahead, Mr. Bodrov had planned to leave after the first presentation, but later deemed necessary to postpone his business matters had stayed until the end, and thanked the organizers and participants for such an interesting and informative conference.

Globalization

Alexei Mankovski, representative of the “New Youth Policy” in Canada, started with the first presentation, talking about the notion of globalization and the conditions that have lead to the appearance of multiple variants of controlling (managing) globalization. He noted that globalization is the objective process of constructing a culture uniting all of humanity. One of its particular manifestations is the process of integration of national economies into a single global system. This happens as a result of the fact that any society requires a system of production and distribution of goods, and all people are in one way or another interested in increasing the efficiency of this system: in order to receive more goods and, at the same time, to get more free time. One of the means of increasing the effectiveness of this system is the exchange of cultural achievements between different peoples.

Globalization is an objective process, but the control over it is subjective, meaning that there may be created several variants of globalization management. In other words, humanity will inevitably unite in a single social order, but the nature of this future planet-wide society depends on the will and ability of people themselves to steer the process of globalization into the desired direction.

Alexei Mankovski drew attention to the fact that the current stage of globalization is vastly different from the previous one. Even though at this stage of globalization dominates the same conception of managing globalization as during the previous stage, management based on the same conception has lead to a dead end — the current systemic crisis: crises in the ecological, economic, and sociocultural spheres. In certain circles, the systemic management crisis has been named the “general crisis of capitalism”.

The Dominating conception

The dominating variant of globalization is widely spread throughout the world. It has four encapsulating versions:

• capitalism on the basis of bourgeois liberalism,
• pseudo-socialism on the basis of Marxism,
• convergence of the first two versions,
• and the pseudo-Islamic caliphate.

Alexei Mankovski: The essence of the dominating conception of globalization is maintenance of a crowd-“elitist” social order. This phenomenon was described back at the end of the XIX century by french sociologist Gustave le Bon in his book “The crowd: a study of the popular mind”. The term speaks for itself: crowd-“elitism” assumes the division of society into the crowd and the so called “elite”. The “elite”, being more informed about social processes, keeps the vast majority (the crowd) in submission, which allows the “elite” to exploit the crowd. This is the main aim of the dominating conception of globalization.

As it was stated above, the means of achieving the same aims may be different. Accordingly, there are several versions of the dominating conception of globalization, which are tuned to achieve this aim in different ways. All of them in one way or another manifest themselves in the present.”

Bourgeois liberalism has several main characteristics. First, it is based on the cult of individualism, which has degenerated into social atomism, excessively emphasizing the individual and their interests over society. Secondly, it assumes the liberal-market economy: market production-consumption relations and withdrawal of state control from the economy, which generates stratification of society into the rich and the poor. One’s social status depends on the level of financial sufficiency, which means that there is a low level of social security for the vast majority of the population. Thirdly, nominally everyone has equal rights, but in practice not everyone can realize them: only rich individuals (the bourgeois) have the ability to realize their rights to their full capacity. Fourthly, it declares the principle of “tolerance” and “pluralism”, which allows the coexistence of traditional religious confessions.

Bourgeois liberalism, as a social order, has exhausted its potential, since it does not solve humanity’s problems in a long-term perspective. It is clear to everyone that the world cannot exist on the principles of unlimited consumption. Liberal economic theories do not allow to plan development in the long-term, since at the base of the liberal-market economy lie oscillations between relatively stable and calm periods and severe crises, which threaten to bring society down to outright nazist and fascist regimes.

Marxism was supposed to come to power back at the beginning of the XX century in many countries around the world, by means of revolution. However, this scenario, in its full capacity, materialised only in Russia. The social order based on Marxism is called “socialist”, but Alexei Mankovski noted, that it may be called “pseudo-socialist”, because it does not solve the problem of exploitation of man by man, and in the practice of building socialism in the Soviet Union has lead to the creation of the ruling class — the “bureaucratic nomenclature” — even though everyone was equal by declaration. The reason for such an outcome — the inconsistency of Marxist philosophy and polit-economy.

Dialectic materialism had for the first time led the Soviet society to the possibility of mastering methodological philosophy (“if you have a question, use your own mind to find the answer”), replacing the dogmatic philosophies of various faith-teachings (“if you have a question, look for the answer in sacred writings, traditions, testaments”). During the discussion, it became evident that after the death of J. Stalin, Marxism has been dogmatised and made into a cult, not a philosophy that can be modified and improved.

Another question came up: “Is it really impossible to build a just society on the basis of Marxism?” Throughout the discussion, it was found out that the Marxist polit-economy is inadequate to the practice of controlling the national economy and the life of society in general. This is due to the inapplicability of its conceptual basis to practical activity, which was pointed out back in 1952 by the deceased secretary-general in his work “Economic problems of Socialism in the USSR”. He suggested that economists “discard certain other concepts taken from Marx’s Capital (...) artificially applied to our socialist relations (...) such concepts, among others, as “necessary” and “surplus” labour, “necessary” and “surplus” product, “necessary” and “surplus” time.” The USSR has experimentally shown the inconsistency of Marxism, although opinions were voiced that there was no true realization of Marxism in the USSR.

The variant of convergence theoretically assumes a combination of the best principles of capitalism and socialism. In particular, the combination of bourgeois individual freedoms and a state-planning mechanism of controlling the economy. The conceptual and terminological base of social sciences, necessary for solving problems, has not been developed for this variant. Even given the “evolutionary”, not “revolutionary” nature of its approach, the end goals of convergence have not been definitely determined, and left for the consideration of descendants. This way, under the slogans of convergence, the Soviet Union was destroyed: the content of the “Perestroyka” was filled with values of bourgeois liberalism.

The fourth variant is the pseudo-Islamic worldwide caliphate. This variant is very similar to Marxist pseudo-socialism, which is why it has been christened “The Green International” in some circles. By definition, a “caliphate” is an Islamic theocratic state, but the variant is called pseudo-Islamic because it contradicts the essence of the Quran. Like the Marxist pseudo-socialistic variant, the pseudo-Islamic caliphate assumes a forced transition to the ideology of “radical Islam” by means of that, which is today called “Islamic fundamentalism / extremism”. This variant manifests today in the Near East, where the “Arab Spring” has replaced relatively peaceful regimes by radical pseudo-Islamic forces (in Libya, Egypt, and other countries), and generated tendencies for the formation of a caliphate with an aggressive attitude: the devastation caused by destruction during the “Arab Spring” leads to social unrest, and ignites the society in the same way as it happened in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. This variant accomplishes the same goals as the Marxist variant - cessation of the consumption race and of the spread of the individualism cult. The only difference is the ideology under the banners of which this is done: “radical Islam” instead of Marxism.

Alexei Mankovski: “The most probable variant of development is convergence of Western states towards the ideas of socialism. Partial examples of this can already be seen in Europe, for example — Sweden, and in South America — Cuba. And convergence is a guarantee of peaceful coexistence of different regions, since it assumes a reformational, gradual transition towards the ideas of socialism. The only question is, based on what principles will this be done? If on the basis of yet the same crowd-“elitism”, then it will be pseudo-socialism. If on the basis of the idea of elimination of exploitation of man by man, then it will be real socialism. But if the latter, then it is a completely different aim, and accordingly — a completely different conception of globalization.”

Eastern alternatives

In the next part of the conference, the second presentation touched on the essence of the Chinese and Japanese projects of globalization.

Leonid Drozdov, representative of the “New Youth Policy” in Estonia, in his part of the presentation about the Eastern alternatives to the dominating conception of globalization, told the audience about the Chinese project.

The dream of the Chinese civilization is the “Great Unity” Da Don. In China’s opinion, at present the world is in need of Chinese values, because the human values are fully expressed precisely in them, again — in China’s opinion. Leonid Drozdov pointed out, that the peculiarity of the Chinese society is adherence to crowd-“elitism”. In particular, of its “elite” — to Marxism with a certain Chinese specific. He also noted a low cultural and educational level of the society, caused by difficulty of learning the Chinese language, even for natives. Knowledge of Chinese people could be classified by the number of hieroglyphs learned.

Leonid Drozdov: “China itself regards “peace everywhere under heaven” as the main universal value, which should be accepted throughout the world. Unfortunately, if this endeavour bases only on the philosophical traditions dominant in the East so far, then the Eastern “peace everywhere under heaven” is only possible in the form of a strict stratified slave system, enclosed in the banners of pseudo-socialism of a Marxist sort.”

At the new stage of globalization, expansion of social classes that understand laws of globalization is necessary to the scale of the whole society. This will lead to diversion from the traditions of information segmentation by the principle “for each caste — it’s own level of knowledge of social processes and societal management”.

Vladimir Devyatov, representative of the organization in Russia, in the second part of the presentation discussed the Japanese version of controlling globalization. Its essence is engineering of crowd-“elitism” in society, based on the “bonsai” culture:

“We cannot stop a tree’s growth, but we can slow it down, decreasing its potential of development”.

The way of development, chosen by Japan, is to support its current status of the world technological leader, which does not fit well with development of the natural environment and resolutions of the ecological crisis. Exactly by means of superior knowledge, technology and self-discipline, the Japanese want to become the “elite”, making the rest of the world a crowd with respect to themselves. This version of crowd-“elitism” is in its embryonic stage and cannot be exported to other civilizations. The main reason for its inconsistency — the attempt to create a global fascist society led by the Japanese.

Concluding the presentation, Vladimir Devyatov pointed out that, as a whole, Eastern globalization projects have several advantages, such as: development of internal culture of self-discipline and control over emotions, detachment from the consumption race, a holistic perspective of the world in the traditional Eastern philosophical systems, strategic planning over long-term periods. However, they also have several downsides: a specific “individualism”, formatting of the human using “bonsai” principles, hermetism of knowledge that is embedded at the level of language and in caste systems of government structures, and atheism (versions of pantheism — idolization of nature — dominate in the East).

Vladimir Devyatov: “We think that each civilization can solve its own problems only through close interaction with others. Every civilization can offer something to others and also take something from them. All that is needed is to create the conditions for such exchange with united efforts”.

Features of the worldview, on which all aforementioned versions of globalization are based, are atheism and crowd-“elitism”. The latter is always internally conflicting, because of realization of exploitation of man by man, which creates inclination towards repressions and revolutions. The only version of a peaceful evolutionary approach within this paradigm of societal systems is convergence, which is due to its openness, indefiniteness and incomplete design. For the same reason, it could be filled with algorithms of achieving true justice and Humanness, which are currently expressed in the Russian version of globalization.

Russian version of Globalization

In the concluding presentation, Alexey Severikov, secretary-general of the organization in Europe, spoke about Russia, noting, that it is not a country, but a civilization.

Alexey Severikov: “The mobility of its frontiers is of a pulsating-expanding nature, and this is a long-term tendency historically. During the civilization's periods of crisis, a crisis of statehood occurs and from the state separates a relatively young periphery, but as the crisis gets resolved, the young periphery, being unable to solve its problems by itself, returns back into the state. It is also joined by people, for whom the quality of life within Russia is more desirable, than that achieved being alone or within other regional civilizations. Exactly as a result of this, by the beginning of the XX century, Russia covered ⅙ of planetary land area.”

Alexey Severikov noted, that “Russian” is a civilizational concept, which is much wider than the concept of “nation”, since it assumes not the pertainment to some ethnic group or state, but the unity of people’s worldview.

Ilya Kempi, representative of the “New Youth Policy” in Finland, continued the presentation, telling about the the globalization conception created in Russia. The Russian version of globalization assumes realization of the principle: “All that is missing for a Russian person to be happy, is the happiness of all people”.

The Russian version of globalization is not “globalization for Russians”, but a variant of globalization for everyone, suggested by Russian people, who want to live in a fair world.

Ilya Kempi: “In contrast to the dominating version of globalization and the Eastern alternatives, which are suggested from levels of different global political circles, the Russian version is suggested from the level of a social initiative — the part of the people, which understands the objectivity of the globalization process and subjectivity of its control, and, based on the supremacy of conscience in decision-making, is developing and realizing this version into life.”

This alternative is based on the principles: 1) preservation of ecological balance in the biosphere, 2) satisfaction of demographic necessities of people, 3) accessibility of a high level of education and any level of knowledge for representatives of all social groups, 4) elimination of exploitation of man by man, 5) the opportunity to realize one’s individual cognitive and creative potential, 6) peaceful coexistence of different nations and cultures, built on the principle of constructive dialogue — a conversation, where a common opinion is achieved by means of removing the errors initially intrinsic to each party.

Perspectives of globalization in an environment with multiple versions of controlling globalization, will be characterised, first and foremost, by their struggle for people’s minds — supporters for each of them. We can expect an interaction and mutual influence of ideas-conceptions. How will this interaction happen?

Ilya Kempi: “Remember, how Yeshua says in the novel of Mikhail Bulgakov: “To speak the truth is easy and pleasant”? Speaking the truth to one another not to offend, but to attain more freedom, clearing one of prejudices and worldview mistakes — this is an essential part of building bridges between different nationalities, cultures, and civilizations.”

As a result, only one version of globalization will remain on Earth - the one that is most adequate to life, the one with the least unintentional mistakes and falsehood. In the process of interaction with others, this version will absorb the best from all others.

After discussing the presentations, participants of the conference were awaited by a pleasant surprise in the form of Russian folk songs, sung by members of “New Youth Policy”.

After the musical portion, participants untangled the “tangled human ring”. The game starts with everyone standing close to each other, then spreading their hands into different directions, after which each person takes the right hand (precisely the right hand) of another with their left hand. As a result, everyone should be holding hands.

Then, a common effort must be applied to solve the task: “untangle the ring without releasing hands”. Usually, the result is a single, large human ring (called a khorovod in Russian), or several rings that are either joined or not joined with one-another.

Everyone liked the game, as it teaches participants to be attentive to those around you, to look ahead, predicting where your actions will lead, and, which is most important, teaches everyone to get out of a difficult situation together, since it is simply impossible to do alone.

Articles based on the presentations will soon be available on the “New Youth Policy” website.

Photos were taken from here:https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.663396020349409.1073741837.432782050077475&type=1