Every great idea on paper will sound fantastical until the moment of its implementation. Either it is a practical application when it was originally designed or else it had been an impractical concept all along. Humility is needed in order to recognize any potential flaws in the Work-Standard and to find the resolve conductive to rectifying them. Any proposed monetary reform for the Work-Standard can and will stay true to the authenticity of its true essence in the SMP Compendium. After all, the first edition was quickly written as a draft to consolidate what has been ten years of efforts to conceptualize Socialist Finance and Socialist Technology into a Socialist Fintech (Financial Technology). If all monetary reforms from hereon stay true to “the spirit, the sense, the lessons” of the SMP Compendium and The Fourth Estate, then I am proud to call the Work-Standard my greatest contribution to the Destiny of America and Western Civilization.
It must be repeated until it becomes internalized that the goal of the Work-Standard is to pursue the greatest Quality of Arbeit for the least Quality of Geld. No matter what happens in Life, always remember that, like political or military history, nobody in economic history is perfect.
Achieving results under the Work-Standard may become easier said than done if there are circumstances where “the Quality of Arbeit achieves par value with the Quality of Geld,” where our contributions of Arbeit and generations of Geld begin breaking even. Or there could be other circumstances where we have to deal with the worst-case scenario: what we are capable of genuinely achieving is “the least Quality of Arbeit for the highest Quality of Geld.” In that case, our contribution of Arbeit is greater than it should be and yet we are still not receiving the appropriate generation of Geld.
Either of those cases may reflect any economic conditions in war and peace. If the Work-Standard capitulates during wartime, it will bear all of the misfortunes of Prussia between 1914 and 1945. And if the Work-Standard capitulates during peacetime, it will bear an uncanny resemblance to the economic stagnation, decline and eventual collapse of the Eastern Bloc countries, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia between 1971 and 1991. It is possible that the stagnation and decline could be prolonged across decades, as evidenced by the economic deterioration of the Western world and the United States between 1971 and 2021.
Humility is what gives me this realization. I genuinely prefer those kinds of odds to be stacked against the Work-Standard. The 20th century never ended in the 21st century. There is no doubt that the 20th century will continue living in the 22nd century as well. Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that I am writing this in 2021. And no, I am not convinced that Oswald Spengler’s predictions of Western Civilization collapsing by the 23rd century will be realized. History itself has shown that Spengler is an example of what Richard Alan Clarke had once referred in 2017 as a “Cassandra,” whose warnings are self-evident based on the “Cassandra Coefficient.”
The so-called “Decline of the West” was just that: a two-volume ontological and phenomenological pondering over Currency, Technology, and Fintech becoming the three things that will bring about the demise of Western Civilization through Climate Change. The significance of Climate Change is discernible not in the pages of Prussianism and Socialism, but in the other treatise that Spengler had written as his follow up with the final chapters of Decline of the West, Man and Technics.
Speaking of 2021 (and the Coronavirus Pandemic), I will ‘never forget’ this particular paragraph that Richard Alan Clarke and coauthor R. P. Eddy had written in their 2017 book, Warnings: Finding Cassandras to Stop Catastrophes:
“Perhaps because [Robert G.] Webster and [Laurie] Garrett fit so well into the metrics of experts we ought to listen to, they are not ignored completely like some of the Cassandras we met in the first half of this book. Nonetheless, they and other experts in their field believe there is a dangerous lack of commitment and resources to the solutions Garrett and Webster call for[,] [namely, the need to find the financial firepower for the whole world to defend against the next 1918 Influenza Pandemic]. When the next pandemic strikes, all that will matter is the capacity of [America’s] public health system to detect and respond.”
Therefore, this SMP Compendium entry explores the elusive mystery of the World State Organization (WSO) and its significance to a Socialist world order. By finishing this Compendium entry, my first hope is to shed light on the significance of the US Dollar being the World Reserve Currency, why this affects the world order since 1945, and why this status is more harmful to the American Union. Relevant to this discussion is why every nation must never allow its own Currency to become the next “World Reserve Currency.” I will also discuss from an American perspective about the European Union (EU) and from a European perspective discuss about the United Nations (UN) and the why US still has overwhelming leverage over the current world order. And at the end of what will no doubt be the longest entry in the Compendium, the role of the Work-Standard can then be addressed in relation to a proposed World State Organization (WSO) to address the historical problems posed by the UN, the EU, and the current world order.
2021: Jubilee of Nixon’s NEP
When I began writing this Compendium, 2021 became the jubilee of President Richard Nixon’s decision to unpeg the US Dollar from the Gold Standard. The demise of the Bretton Woods System was set into motion on 13 and 15 August 1971, its death finalized two years later in 1973. Americans should be proud of this historical fact because he had exposed the metaphysical contradictions of an international financial system that was literally designed to fail from its moment of conception. Despite Vietnam and Watergate, Nixon should be praised for reintroducing Socialism in America by addressing why America and the West still exist in the state of Total Mobilization despite living in financial nihilism since 1914. His 1971 speech, “Address to the Nation Outlining a New Economic Policy: ‘The Challenge of Peace,’” can be reinterpreted with the Work-Standard in mind. Below are the relevant portions which I feel to be the most important:
“America today has the best opportunity in this century to achieve two of its greatest ideals: to bring about a full generation of peace, and to create a new prosperity without war.
This not only requires bold leadership ready to take bold action–it calls forth the greatness in a great people.
Prosperity without war requires action on three fronts: We must create more and better jobs; we must stop the rise in the cost of living; we must protect the dollar from the attacks of international money speculators.
The time has come for a new economic policy for the United States. Its targets are unemployment, [Attrition], and [the dangers of Financial Warfare.]
We are going to take that action–not timidly, not half-heartedly, and not in piecemeal fashion. We are going to move forward to the new prosperity without war as befits a great people–all together, and along a broad front.
“In the past 7 years, there has been an average of one international monetary crisis every year. Now who gains from these crises? Not the workingman; not the investor; not the real producers of wealth. The gainers are [Liberal Capitalists]. Because they thrive on crises, they help to create them.
In recent weeks, the [Liberal Capitalists] have been waging an all-out war on the American Dollar. The strength of a nation’s currency is based on the [Arbeit] of that nation’s economy–and the American economy is by far the strongest in the world. Accordingly, I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to take the action necessary to defend the dollar against the [Liberal Capitalists].
I have directed Secretary Connally to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the Dollar into Gold or other reserve assets, except in amounts and conditions determined to be in the interest of monetary stability and in the best interests of the United States.
As a result of these actions, the [Total Productive Potential] of American [Totality] will be more competitive, and the unfair edge that some of our foreign competition has will be removed. This is a major reason why [the Balance of Power in Trades and Payments have] eroded over [since 1956].”
“The purposes of the [Federal government’s] actions I have announced tonight are to lay the basis for renewed confidence, to make it possible for us to compete fairly with the rest of the world, to open the door to new prosperity.
But government, with all of its powers, does not hold the key to the success of a people. That key, my fellow Americans, is in your hands.
A nation, like a person, has to have a certain inner drive in order to succeed. In economic affairs, that inner drive is called the competitive spirit.
Every action I have taken tonight is designed to nurture and stimulate that competitive spirit, to help us snap out of the self-doubt, the self-disparagement that saps our [Quality of Arbeit] and erodes our confidence in ourselves.”
This was one of the Nixon speeches which I have found to be favorable to the Work-Standard. The SMP Compendium was written in light of the great economic and financial tragedies that have occurred since the First World War. The US Dollar is still not being pegged to the Gold Standard, the only thing backing the Currency now is Schuld (Debt/Guilt). Problems like trade and fiscal budget deficits, excessive Taxes, government and consumer spending, the US National Debt, Currency Depreciation, and economic stagnation continue to plague the Union. For Socialism to be taken seriously by everyday Americans, a Transvaluation of the US Dollar is needed.
World Order: SIEO contra LIEO and NIEO
The 20th century never ended. The current world order as of late is the “Liberal International Economic Order” (LIEO). The LIEO represents all of the major international and intergovernmental organizations that define institutional framework that emerged after the official end of World War II. The Cold War was in final analysis a continuation of World War II under a different name. World War II did not end on 2 September 1945. It actually ended on 12 September 1990 with a new Versailles Treaty that brought about the “Reunification of Germany.” Alternatively, if one wishes to look at it in a different light, it was a shotgun annexation of East Germany by West Germany with the full backing of the Allied Powers. This new Versailles Treaty was called the “2+4 Agreement,” its official title being the “Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany.”
The actual end, as opposed to the ‘official end’, of World War II signaled the unipolarity of the LIEO as Thomas Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty. This is an historical fact that everyone in developing countries should know because of their everyday lives are dictated by the US Dollar. It is also not random some literary figment, rhetorical propaganda on this author’s part, or even a conspiracy theory. Jefferson was openly adamant about the idea as far back as 1780 in the American Revolutionary War, the Napoleonic Wars, and prior to the War of 1812 in US history.
“[W]e shall divert through our own Country a branch of commerce which the European States have thought worthy of the most important struggles and sacrifices, and in the event of peace on terms which have been contemplated by some powers we shall form to the American Union a barrier against the dangerous extension of the British Province of Canada and add to the Empire of Liberty an extensive and fertile Country thereby converting dangerous Enemies into valuable friends.”-Thomas Jefferson to George Rogers Clark, ca. December 25, 1780
“We should then have only to include the North [Read: Canada] in our Confederacy, which would be of course in the first war, and we should have such an Empire for Liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation: and I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive Empire and self-government [on the British Imperialist model of Common Properties-as-Wealth and Private Properties-as-Wealth].”-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, ca. April 27, 1809
There is a book on the topic which I feel is relevant to this SMP Compendium entry. The blurb of a book by Peter S. Onuf entitled, Jefferson’s Empire: The Language of American Nationhood, discusses this pressing matter in almost unambiguous language:
“The [American] Civil War cast in high relief the tragic limitations of Jefferson’s political vision. After the Union victory, as the reconstructed nation-state developed into a world power, dreams of the United States as an ever-expanding Empire of peacefully coexisting States quickly faded from memory. Yet even as the antebellum Federal Union disintegrated, a Jeffersonian Nationalism, proudly conscious of America’s historic revolution against imperial domination, grew up in its place [as ‘Isolationism’].
In [Peter] Onuf’s view, Jefferson’s quest to define a new American identity also shaped his ambivalent conceptions of slavery and Native American rights. His revolutionary fervor led him to see Indians as ‘merciless savages’ who ravaged the frontiers at the British [Crown’s] direction, but when those frontiers were pacified, a more benevolent Jefferson encouraged these same Indians to embrace [Democratic-Republican] values. African American slaves, by contrast, constituted an unassimilable captive nation, unjustly wrenched from its African homeland. His great panacea: Colonization [and more recently, Globalization].
Jefferson’s ideas about race reveal the limitations of his conception of American nationhood. Yet, as Onuf strikingly documents, Jefferson’s vision of a republican empire–a regime of peace, prosperity, and union without coercion–continues to define and expand the boundaries of American national identity.”
And even though Jefferson did not know what would become of the idea over the next two centuries, his idea later became the basis of Democratic-Republican foreign policy under Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. What Americans and non-Americans have forgotten or simply chose to forget is that contemporary America is still dealing with an irreparable fissure created by Jefferson’s vision of the American Empire of Liberty clashes and in opposition to the vision of Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist American Union.
It is true that the Empire of Liberty still encompasses much of the known world. However, the 20th century could have played out differently, with the United States annexing all of North America into its own borders, and Latin America and Europe reduced to being Jeffersonian puppets. That too is not a conspiracy theory, but an everyday fact that everybody people in Cuba, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina all have to deal with. For all of those countries have been affected by the Democratic-Republicans’ “Monroe Doctrine” in the past two centuries.
However, as world history itself demonstrated, empires do not last forever because they will eventually degenerate and become impotent as time passes. With Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty having a lot more in common with the British Empire of King George V than the German Empire of Kaiser Wilhelm, there is no doubt that the decline of the Empire of Liberty will be a very slow, painful one for the American people as a Totality. This is an historical reality that various Americans have sensed in the thirty years since the end of World War II. Gore Vidal and Russell Kirk, Pat Buchanan and Murray Rothbard, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger, Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Phillip Huntington, Bill Kristol and Richard Alan Clarke, George Friedman (born “Friedman György”) and Robert Kagan had either written or spoken specifically about this particular historical phenomenon. Some have written whole books on the very topic, except none of them had any coherent picture on why the American Totality has been waging Total War against itself from the 1960s Counterculture to the afternoon of January 6, 2021.
What all of them, including those who were already deceased, did not realize is that the 1960s Counterculture and the afternoon of January 6, 2021 are in themselves related to the same Spenglerian-Heideggerian crisis of Being that emerged on the morning of September 11, 2001.
This is because, from a Hamiltonian Federalist perspective, the presidencies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump are in many respects Jeffersonian foreign policy reaching its logical conclusions, both of which will continue to resonate with the Biden presidency and all future Jeffersonian presidencies. What the Biden presidency is trying to achieve in the Coronavirus Pandemic, thirty years after the actual end of World War II, is consolidation of all historical experiences among the Jeffersonian presidencies (Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, and Trump). The Implicit Intent is to do everything possible to hold onto the American Union and the Empire of Liberty because the decision-making of the Biden administration is resembling as though America is being thrusted into choosing either the Union or the Empire by world history itself.
European Order: European Realm or European Union?
(Hamiltonian Federalist Perspective)
Outside of Conventional Warfare and Unconventional Warfare, there are only four ways for a European nation-state to conquer another without firing a shot: through the Catholic Church, through the national government, through the national economy, or through the national currency.
First, His Holiness, the Pope, could recognize the sanctity of a political marriage under the Sacrament of Matrimony and coronate the new ruler like what happened to Napoleon Bonaparte. This practice ceased in the wake of the First Vatican Council (aka “Vatican I”) due to Secularism and the delegitimization of Monarchism. The Second Vatican Council (aka “Vatican II”) has raised even more questions. Everything pertains to the Papacy’s powers of “Papal Infallibility” on matters of faith and morals as well as His Holiness and the Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops’ rightful control over the “Magisterium.” In fact, barring the House of Windsor in Great Britain, a lot of Europeans are unconvinced that the Royal Families and the Papacy should be reentering politics.
Second, there are the European political parties, all of them have been trying to gain and retain political power in Europe for the past two centuries. As of late, there is already a political party somewhere in Europe with membership ranging anywhere from a few hundred to millions adhering to ideologies that include, but not always limited to:
- Social Liberalism (aka “Progressivism”), Neoliberalism (aka “Liberal Capitalism”), Classical Liberalism (aka “Libertarianism”).
- Marxist Socialisms of Josef Stalin’s “Socialism in One Country” and Leon Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution.”
- French Syndicalism, Belgian Rexism, Spanish Falangism, Italian Fascism, and Pan-Germanic Socialism (aka what Political Science calls “National Socialism”).
- Environmentalism and Traditionalism, Nationalism and Conservatism, Monarchism and Authoritarianism, Ultramontanism and Statism.
Third, there is the possibility of economic unions and customs unions being formed through international treaties. The European Union is held together by an interlocking web of alignments and agreements that can always be broken by a national government with the necessary resolve to demonstrate critical and creative thinking. It also ties in with the fourth consideration because the European Union’s ability to exist is always dependent on the Euro and its precursor, the European “Exchange Rate Mechanism” (ERM), which was a product of the death of Bretton Woods.
At the end of the day, the European Union is an elaborate Free Trade Agreement. To join the EU is to lose National Sovereignty, Military Sovereignty, Economic Sovereignty, and Financial Sovereignty through unsustainable Economic Foreignization. An American observer of European politics must realize that Europe is a diverse continent of Totalities that will never truly be united like the American Union. The past centuries of military maneuvers and political schemes have shown that each European nation has a Totality with distinct psychic and psychological characteristics. This notion of “Pan-Europeanism” is just a perversion of the historical legacy of “Pan-Germanism” begun by Pan-Germanic Socialists like Rudolf Jung in Czechia.
American Order: Federalist Union or Democratic-Republican Empire?
(Prussian Socialist Perspective)
The two World Wars saw the imperialistic dreams of Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party being projected onto the Union. It was not just the foreign policies of Woodrow Wilson that the League of Nations (LN) would eventually become the United Nations (UN) with the United States asserting a dictatorial streak. It was also not just the foreign policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that the UN, together with the Bretton Woods System, would eventually become geopolitical realities for the presidency of Harry Truman.
However, another dimension of the Empire of Liberty exists in addition to its affairs on the Eurasian landmass, the Eastern Hemisphere. There is also the issue of how America should be conducting itself on the Western Hemisphere, the Americas. What is happening in Europe can and will happen in the Americas because of the Democratic-Republicans historical insistence on the creation of a “North American Union” (NAU) under the pretext of international trade.
The Democratic-Republicans between the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were trying to realize the little-known “North American Union” (NAU). Reagan initially supported the endeavor to realize Jefferson’s dream on 13 November 1979, relying on the freedom-security dialectic to justify Jeffersonian foreign policy ambitions. He proposed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) where his presidential advisors spent his two presidential terms laying the groundwork for the opening phases of the NAU.
In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act, which itself built upon and amended the prior Trade Act of 1974. The Act gave enhanced ‘fast-track’ authority to negotiate bilateral free trade agreements, streamlining negotiations.
In 1985, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney agreed to begin discussions for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Negotiations began in 1986, and it was signed in 1988. It went into effect on January 1, 1989, and remained in force until NAFTA replaced it.
The idea called for a European-like “Common Market” on the North American continent, comparable to the European Economic Community (EEC) that later became the European Union. The possibility always there for NAFTA to form the basis of a Jeffersonian Empire stretching from Alaska to Panama City. Fortunately, that plan was never realized by the Reagan presidency and its immediate successor, the Bush 41 presidency. The Clinton presidency, however, went ahead with this FTA, which later became known as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).
Even though Bill Clinton intended NAFTA to be just an FTA, that does not mean the possibility of creating the NAU was no longer a factor. As for Bush 43, the son of Bush 41, he was the final President to be interested in the NAU. There was no doubt that Bush 43 could have gotten the choice to consider pursuing the creation of the NAU, continuing where Clinton, his father Bush 41, and Reagan had begun since the 1970s. However, when 9/11 happened, the Bush 43 administration was no longer able to focus their efforts on the creation of NAU. Their concerns at the time were being redirected toward Afghanistan and more specifically, Iraq. The 9/11 attacks have essentially curtailed all possibilities for an NAU to exist. Concerns about international terrorism, organized crime, illegal immigration, and excessive Economic Foreignization penetrating the Federalist American Union have not just persisted but worsened. It was not until the Trump presidency that NAFTA was finally “‘renegotiated’” in the Coronavirus Pandemic.
“NAFTA was attacked from all sides during the 2008 presidential campaign. Barack Obama blamed it for growing unemployment. He said it helped businesses at the expense of workers in the United States. It also did not provide enough protection against the exploitation of workers and the environment.
During her campaign, Hillary Clinton considered the agreement flawed. Both Clinton and Obama promised to amend NAFTA.
Republican candidate Ron Paul said he would abolish the trade agreement. He said it would create a ‘superhighway’ and compared it to the European Union, though NAFTA does not enforce a single currency among its signatories.
In the 2012 presidential election, President Obama, Paul, and the other candidates continued their debate over NAFTA, with Donald Trump and Clinton continuing the arguments during the 2016 election.”
“On August 27, 2018, President Trump and Mexico reached a bilateral trade deal to replace NAFTA, threatening to leave Canada out. Canada joined on September 30, 2018. On November 30, 2018, an agreement was reached by the three countries.
The new deal is called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), and it has been ratified by each country’s legislature. Mexico ratified the USMCA on June 19, 2019; the U.S. ratified it on January 29, 2020; and Canada ratified it on March 13, 2020.
The Trump administration wanted to lower the trade deficit between the United States and Mexico. The new deal attempts to change NAFTA in six areas, including a rule that auto companies must manufacture at least 75% of a car’s components in the USMCA’s trade zone or be subject to higher tariffs.
The USMCA took effect on July 1, 2020, as a renegotiation of NAFTA.”
Putting American foreign policy in a false dialectic between Jeffersonian Isolationism and Jeffersonian Internationalism is like asking a Hamiltonian Federalist about whether Charles Koch (who is one of the Koch brothers) is more Jeffersonian than his fellow Jeffersonian, George Soros, or vice versa. As a matter of a fact, and contrary to what is known in the American media, Koch and Soros had established an American NGO, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, as a joint venture to promote their shared foreign policy views. This political phenomenon is only possible if the two men share the same worldview and the same psychic and psychological conditions that bind them as Jeffersonians.
The real differences to be discerned from George Soros and Charles Koch (and this is a very important one for Hamiltonian Federalism), are their distinct views on the Empire of Liberty and the American Union. Knowing when to distinguish between “American Federalism” and “American Anti-Federalism” is crucial for any American adhering to Hamiltonianism.
- Jeffersonian Internationalism: Soros wishes to preserve the Empire of Liberty to the exclusion of the American States and the Federalist Union vis-à-vis the Federal government.
- Jeffersonian Isolationism: Koch wishes to preserve the American States to the exclusion of the Empire of Liberty and the Federalist Union vis-à-vis the Federal government.
- Hamiltonian Nationalism and Hamiltonian Interventionism: These United States must overcome their vast cultural, lingual, communal, ecclesiastical, and ancestral differences through the Federal government as States of this Federalist Union as it is written in the Preamble of the Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Interplanetary Order: Worldwide Socialization or Worldwide Exploitation?
The historical conditions which brought America to realize Thomas Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty is one of the two superpowers that sought to reshape Earth when it became clear that the Third Reich lacked a vision of the future in 1941. The Hitlerists, like the Italian Fascists and the Imperial Japanese, squandered their chances to play their parts in the post-1945 world because they were obsessed with destroying the Soviet Union than the Allied Powers before America could intervene.
That is not to say that the Soviet Union was any better than the Hitlerist Third Reich or the Jeffersonian Empire of Liberty. Since the Cold War was a continuation of World War II as the intuition of the 1960s Counterculture, the Hitlerists could have taken the place of the Soviets post-1945. From a Hamiltonian Federalist perspective, that is even worse because the Jeffersonians would have a different pretext to literally create the North American Union. But instead of the NAU or NAFTA/USMCA, it will instead become “Fortress North America” vis-à-vis the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).
Fortunately for Hamiltonianism, the Soviets were the ones who emerged victorious in the “Great Patriotic War”; there is no denying this. However, the Soviets also lost World War II along with Prussia (as West and East Germanies) in the Versailles Treaty because Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin disclosed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and presided over the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
There was no way for the Soviet Union to reach the 21st century unchanged. The reasons are far more than just the usual tired explanations like the design flaws of “Soviet-Type Economic Planning” (STEP), the usual problems with Marxist Theory, or the usual dependency on petroleum exports for foreign currency imports (an “Economic Calculation Problem” which persists in Post-Soviet Russia under Vladimir Putin). The Soviets had demonstrated a divorce from geopolitical reality by failing to build lasting diplomatic relations with the PRC, Albania, former Yugoslavia, and Romania. Its military interventions in the former East Germany, Hungary, and former Czechoslovakia. Few Americans know of the “Sino-Soviet Border War” of 1969 and even fewer even discuss it with their fellow Americans. The geopolitical lesson which must be learned from the wars among Socialist nations in the Cold War is that, even if Liberal Capitalist ceases to exist in a Socialist world order, do not expect future conflicts to be avoided altogether.
A “Socialist International Economic Order” (SIEO) must bear these geopolitical realities in mind when trying to create its Socialist world order through the World State Organization (WSO). It must not be reduced to becoming another “New International Economic Order” (NIEO) where the purpose is for Western world and non-Western world to reassert the balance of power through the Balance of Trades and Payments. The NIEO because it never bothered to offer a different conception of world beyond what was already offered by the LIEO and the Soviet Union. They could just as easily have become the next LIEO.
International Order: World State Organization or United Nations?
Rather than the LIEO’s “Utopia of Perpetual Peace” and “Dystopia of Perpetual War,” the Socialist world order go beyond this “good and evil” in the Nietzschean sense. Any nation following Friedrich Nietzsche’s advice to restore the good and bad through the Affirmation of Life will eventually heed the equally sound advice of Prussia’s Carl von Clausewitz. Affirmation of Life’s good and bad in International Relation begets Absolute War and Absolute Peace. All Absolute Wars defy every Perpetual War, all Absolute Peaces defying every Perpetual Peace. In a Socialist world order, nowhere will this be made apparent than at the World State Organization (WSO).
The Intent of the WSO is to provide the international jurisprudence to govern international law and the conduct of nations in times of both Absolute War and Absolute Peace. It will resemble a simplified version of the Socialist conception of Democracy, “Council Democracy.” It is a “Council State,” a centralized federal government featuring a “State Council (Legislative Branch) with an Electoral College that chooses the next Head of State (Executive Branch),” allowing the Head of State to choose their Head of Government, the Cabinet, and Ambassador to the WSO.
Council State visits to the WSO by the Head of State, Head of Government, and Ambassador are conducted alongside three other State officials who act as their equivalents in the formal command structure of the national educational system. Those three preside over the student government of their nation’s “Socialist Student Economy” (SSE) for all students in secondary and tertiary education. The SSE is subordinate to the Command Responsibility of the Council State itself.
At the WSO, there are two International Assemblies and a Supreme World Council:
- An “International Student Assembly” chaired by the three State officials from the SSE and all of their counterparts. All issues pertaining to the SSEs of the world are discussed here.
- An “International State Assembly” chaired by the Head of State, Head of Government and Ambassador. All issues pertaining to the nation-states of the world are discussed here.
Both Assemblies must elect a Head of State and their SSE equivalent as one of the five sitting member-states on the Supreme World Council. Anyone sitting on the Supreme World Council is doing so as the delegative authority of their nation-state in their dialogue with the other four member-states who also sit on the Supreme World Council.
Facing the Supreme World Council are all related to the five issues of Globalization affecting all nations in the SIEO: Political, Economic, Cultural, Financial, Digital.