An Alternative to the American Empire of the New World

Almost childish naiveté, a lack of imagination, simplifications reaching commonness, blind generalizations – these are the impressions one gets after reading Francis Fukuyama’s famous essay `The End of History and the Last Man’. Communism’s crash in the East and the retreat from the “welfare state” in the West are, in the author’s opinion, supposed to mean “the end of history”. Humanity has already found its Kingdom of Heaven, which is liberal democracy married to liberal capitalism, and at this point any change or movement becomes impossible and aimless. In his “wishful thinking” Fukuyama is blind to the liberal model’s crisis, exemplified by such things as growing electoral absence, the loss of credibility of the great traditional parties [1], and the constant continuance of recession. Fukuyama doesn’t want to notice the vitality and dynamism of authoritative free-market systems because this would shake his theory of an unbreakable relationship between parliamentary democracy and the free market. [2] Fukuyama believes in the absolute of the current model of civilization and cannot imagine the existence of humanity in a way different from the technological civilization of economic growth. With the disarming trust of a child, Fukuyama believes that reaching the Paradise on Earth is quite possible (What else would one call “the best possible state of affairs”?).

I guess that is enough of enumerating the new Eternal Happiness Prophet’s mistakes.. Without a shadow of a doubt, the days of August 1991 [3], although not meaning the end of humanity’s history, ended one special age of it. It ended the age in which the major problem was making people happy by fulfilling their material needs, and the most important of the conflicts (whose expression was ideological rivalry between egalitarians and liberals) was attached to distribution of the consumers’ goods. However, as soon as the social-etatists [adherents of the welfare state] disgracefully stepped down from the stage of history and the free-marketers, as it seemed, triumphed everywhere, the apparent monolith of the “free world” started breaking up again. On a global scale, the “cold war” between the communist East and capitalist West is being replaced by economic occupation of the backward Peripheries by the highly-developed Center. [4] On the internal political scenes, the conflict between the “globalists” [5] and defenders of political autonomy and cultural identity begins to sharpen. There is growing resistance to the self-driving economic growth which, by destroying the natural environment, becomes a threat to the further existence of the human species. Sooner or later these conflicts will find their ideological expression and take the place of the old division between the right and the left wing. [6] New division lines run across the traditional parties. Occurrences that could be noticed during the French referendum concerning the Maastricht treaty can be treated as a standard example: political, economic and cultural elites are quite “pro-globalist” and among ordinary people there is much resistance. The great parties of the center remain the defenders of the “status quo” and at the same time the extreme wings of the political scene are protesting. [7]

New opposition – Resistance to the New World Order – is actually going to develop from the political extremes or, more directly, from those factions of the current right and left wing opposition, which – responding to the challenges of the new reality – will rethink their assumptions. The rest will end up in a Skansen museum of political folklore. The extreme right wing will break into the totalitarians fascinated with a vision of global empire and ethnocentrists in whom the devotion to national traditions, autonomy and liberties will win. The same differential process waits for the left wing. The gauchistes [8] have been so far behaving like The Red Army, releasing everyone from everything by force (which has led them into several conflicts not only with the oppressive System but also with different factions of the opposition and the majority of ordinary people). While fighting against national states, they don’t notice that above their hitherto enemy grows a new ogre – the supranational super-state that is even less democratic, less responsible to the societies they govern, and more distant from people. Perhaps the left wing, following its old prejudices, will look for an ally against the state, the Church and family in the supranational structures of the Invisible Empire. [9] However, the victory of the Empire over dying national states and traditional communities will be compulsory, because it will put a lonely and rooted out individual in front of the monster of supranational techno-bureaucracy. And destroying this Beast will certainly require much more strength than the gauchistes have!


Where is the way out of this trap? What are the requirements for creating New Resistance? Firstly, traditional values such as those rooted in family, ethnic or religious groups have to be rehabilitated (or at least a “non-aggression pact” with the defenders of these “natural communities” should be signed). Secondly, there is a need to accept the rule of self-limitation; self-limitation of people’s needs in order to save nature, self-limitation of an individual’s freedom in other people’s communities or society’s favor. Third, and most important, a pluralistic vision of the world, in which ideas and behaviors different from the standards of Political Correctness are on equal terms, also has to be accepted. When fighting for freedom of your own expression, you cannot deny other people this law, even if they are very different from you! [10] A pluralistic, decentralized society can be the only alternative to a unified and centralized New World Order, a formless plasma fed on pop-culture. Not only does territorial decentralization (broadening the authority of communities and regions) have to occur but also different cultural communities should gain autonomy. [11] Not only the state but also every community should have the opportunity to proclaim its own laws for its people. In that situation, coexistence of traditional patriarchal families and feminists’ or homosexuals’ pairs, religious fundamentalists’ communities and counter-cultural groups, military- racist communities of the right wing and anarchistic or communistic groups of the left wing would be possible. So that the territorial and cultural decentralization doesn’t become a fiction, it has to be accompanied by economic decentralization and that would mean eliminating the concentration of property and production forms. The information technology revolution gives the opportunity to make this process real. I believe that this idea of a pluralistic society is the only program, which would be able to combine so many scattered and quarrelling sections of anti-System opposition. [12] The only requirement for accepting it is surrendering the ambition of making the whole of humanity happy by your own idea (It will be enough if you concentrate on making yourself happy only). Accepting the variety of the world and the dissimilarity of different people is a task not only for the right-wingers. Otherwise, there will still be the same situation in which a huge silent majority of people are watching scuffles between a handful of left-wing extremists and equally few extremists of the right-wing on TV and the whole show is directed by the elite from behind the scenes.

1. In France antisystem parties such as the communists, the ecologists and the nationalists achieved all together 45% of the votes, which is – together with those who didn’t vote – the majority of the society. In the USA an unattached candidate, Ross Perot, had a practical chance to win the presidential election; everywhere in the world unconventional parties such as the Belgian ROSSEM or Swiss Auto-Partei are growing in strength.

2. Moreover, it would lead to a suspicion that our well-organized mass society inevitably creates technocrat

3. The failure of the coup d’etat in Moscow ended the agony process of communism in its home.

4. “The Center” in my opinion includes highly-developed countries in West Europe, North America and those of the Pacific basin, “the Peripheries” include the majority of the countries of the `Third World’. Post-communistic countries have so far been the middle zone, but it is more probable that they will be degraded to “the Peripheries” than promoted to “the Centre”.

5. I call “the globalists” a formation which, in the name of economic growth (which would be the key to guaranteeing prosperity for everyone), aims to expand the global market by international integration, which leads to further centralization and cultural homogenization. Another, although not so important, element of the globalisation ideology is, in my opinion, the fetish of “human rights”, whose defense and spread is also said to be one of the purposes of international integration. (See “The New Military Humanism” by Noam Chomksy)

6. However, this doesn’t mean that the problem of national income distribution has already lost its meaning! It is still very important, especially in the poor countries of the Peripheries.

7. In case of Maastricht both the French nationalists and communists voted “No!”

8. “Gauchistes” is a French name I give to all groups from the extreme left wing that are not pro-Soviet.

9. The very same mistake has been made on the part of regionalists (for example, Italian Lega Nord) enthusiastic with the idea of unifying Europe. Actually the “Europe a la Maastricht” won’t be a continent of autonomous regions but a satrapy of the Eurobank and Brussels’s eurocrats.

10. People’s freedom consists also in freedom of their irrational prejudices!

11. Just as in the Middle Ages, when ethnic and religious groups and estates had distinct laws and customs, no matter where they lived.

12. In the countries of the Peripheries, the demand for national emancipation from the political, economic and cultural domination of the Center could be an additional (or even the major) link between the left and the right wing opposition.

Leave a Reply