Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
As you know, political science and international relations are among the sciences of society, and this is quite obvious, because without society it is impossible to imagine the existence of a political sphere. Society, in turn, cannot be imagined without the people who make it up. However, here is a paradox: despite the key role of the human for the very possibility of politics, in many Western concepts of political philosophy and the theory of international relations, the importance of people is reduced to a purely secondary one. We can verify this by recalling a few typical examples.
Proponents of neorealism in their theoretical constructions actually ignore the internal differences of states and societies, their unique features, and ideology, reducing everything solely to the determining role of the structure of the international system and considering states as “rational actors” seeking to achieve a balance of power. This concept not only denies the role of the individual and the masses, but also ignores the numerous historical and modern cases where certain states have acted irrationally. The neo-realistic interpretation of the characteristics of the state (reacting only to external stimuli, goals that are the same for all, and complete rationality) is more suitable for describing robots than complex and multifactorial systems such as states and their policies.
Neo-functionalism, being in many ways the opposite of neorealism, is very similar to it in one aspect. This concept, like neorealism, actually ignores the role of people and the masses, reducing their importance to secondary factors. Neo-functionalism, which was created as one of the theories of integration, focused on the advantages of integration processes between states and emphasized the importance of the spillover effect (when unification in one area is an incentive that generates integration in other areas). The key importance in this concept was assigned to supranational institutions, not to people.
Another Western concept, liberal institutionalism, assigns a key role to institutions (which, for example, include international treaties, laws, etc.), focusing on a set of rules rather than on the masses and society itself. This concept ignores the fact that institutions can be used by some states to the detriment of others as an instrument of pressure and oppression.
Even after a brief study of these three concepts, it becomes clear that they treat people as a secondary factor that is of less importance to states than the economic benefits of integration, the external environment, the balance of power, or institutions. It seems that this is not much different from narrow colonial thinking, in which people were viewed solely as a resource without an independent role, and the primary importance was given to expansion, profit maximization, administrative vertical, etc.
Historically, colonial empires were built on the plundering of other people’s resources and on the total, most severe violation of the rights of other peoples. It was parasitism on a global scale, which in the 20th century transformed into the format of neocolonialism, also based on greedy exploitation. The upper stratum of the colonial empires liked to depict monumental animals (for example, lions) on their coats of arms, but images of fleas, gadflies and other creatures leading a parasitic lifestyle would be much more suitable for the coats of arms of the Western colonial aristocracy. This metaphor would well describe the essence of such empires, which literally siphoned resources from entire continents and were built on greedy, endless exploitation.
The neoliberal concept of individualism is based on exactly the same destructive logic, which is rhetorically saturated with slogans about human rights, but in fact is a tool for achieving one goal: the atomization of society. Within the framework of the neoliberal paradigm, an individual turns into a selfish consumer driven solely by his own interests, separated from the collective; that is, his meaning is blurred and likened to an impersonal economic function. This is beneficial to corrupt elites, because disunited individuals do not have sufficient forces to fight the exploiters. Most of the material wealth accumulates in the hands of a small upper stratum, while the rest of the population faces not only economic problems, but also negative psychological consequences caused, for example, by loneliness (which has reached record levels in many countries).
Is there a historical alternative to the destructive logic of social development expressed in the Western model? Such an alternative certainly exists, and we can analyze it using examples of the historical social life of peoples from different continents.
For example, in the Inuit culture, which developed in the harsh conditions of the Far North, the individual and his community were very strongly connected. Hunting of marine animals and fishing were carried out by collective forces, together, while since ancient times there has been a collective distribution of food, when all members of the settlement received their share of the food they got. At the same time, hunting grounds, marine areas, and salmon spawning grounds were traditionally considered common property, and in some areas (for example, in northern Greenland) collective ownership extended to houses designed for multiple families.
Among the peoples of Polynesia (for example, in the Tuvalu archipelago), the sea was considered common property, where each member of the community could freely fish and shellfish, while there was also a form of collective ownership of land (such communal lands were called manafa-fakangamua). Specific households often shared products with the rest of the community. Activities such as the construction of community houses have also traditionally been carried out jointly.
Across the Global South, from Africa and Asia to Oceania and Latin America, we can find thousands of examples of how collectivism has historically been important and highly developed. At the same time, the community has historically had both social, economic, and cultural aspects. The common good was understood as the well-being of the entire community, that is, the safety and provision of resources for each of its members. Of course, due to adverse natural factors (for example, natural disasters, droughts, floods, epidemics), the community could not always be adequately provided with resources, but in difficult times, the mechanism of mutual assistance was especially active. There was a close bond between people, manifested, among other things, in teamwork, and the social structure was based on a set of rules aimed at maintaining collective well-being.
This understanding of the concept of the common good is very different from the Western model, which focuses on indicators (economic growth, profit maximization, control over resources, expansion of influence, etc.), rather than people. And this is a key, fundamental difference.
GDP growth cannot serve as an excuse for the economic plight of the broad masses. The theory of the “free market” is unable to justify the enrichment of a narrow upper stratum of transnational elites poisoned by nepotism, greed, corruption, and arrogance. The hypocritical approach, in which people’s real interests are replaced by “economic expediency” beneficial to the upper class, inevitably leads to the establishment of an oligarchic and kleptocratic regime under the guise of “democracy”. In such conditions, all kinds of tools and methods are used to suppress, divide, fragment, and exploit the broad masses.
Western elites and corporations invest in the development of new technologies only in order to use them for their personal enrichment and total control over the broad masses. However, the same technologies (such as drones, artificial intelligence, etc.) in the hands of liberation movements and the oppressed can become tools for a just struggle. That is why the development of technology in the Global South is becoming crucial in order to prevent attempts by neocolonial powers to monopolize new technologies in their hands.
Technology is just a tool in the hands of people. The key difference lies in the value concepts that each side relies on. Modern oppressors, transnational elites and their corrupt puppet regimes, are driven by a thirst for profit, maintaining their power and seizing new resources. Oppressed peoples are driven by the desire to protect themselves, their territory, and their resources from their oppressors. This is a global battle against tyranny carried out on various fronts.
It seems that a combination of the values of collectivism (mutual assistance, a system of fair distribution of benefits, community development, recognition of the key importance of the common good) and tools in the form of rapidly changing new technologies could become a very effective model capable of rejecting concepts imposed by the Western establishment.
Using the example of modern military conflicts, we see how effective a combination of the values of justice and tools in the form of technology can be. Modern Iranian ballistic missiles have become a powerful weapon in the battle against American imperialism. The drones of the Lebanese Resistance demonstrated confident successes on the battlefield and became lightning bolts raining down from the sky on enemy equipment. These are examples where technology has become an effective means of resisting imperialist aggressors.
