Previously, in “Another Theory of International Relations,” I discussed about the need to introduce an IR Theory compatible with the Work-Standard and why the three main Theories are ill-suited for its purposes on the world stage. Realist Theory and Liberal Theory do not suffice because the former thinks that the Work-Standard is good enough for only one nation, while the latter is inclined to believe that no nation should have its own sovereign currency under the Work-Standard. These conclusions are based on the metaphysical premises which govern Realist Theory and Liberal Theory. The Constructivist Theory, meanwhile, lacks that Conservative Socialist edge the Work-Standard would need to preserve the third Mode of Production and spread the Work-Standard to other parts of the world.
Given those flaws, I cannot condone either Theory to be compatible with the Work-Standard. None of them are suitable, thereby necessitating the need to develop a new IR Theory to complement the Work-Standard and Production for Dasein. To reiterate, consider the following characteristics that this new Theory must entail:
- The international system is not inherently “anarchic” as there are no “anarchic States.”
- The State is the primary actor in the foreign policymaking of the nation.
- The State must know its alignments and develop foreign policies based on them.
- Since every Totality governs their State, all Totalities are to compete with other for the highest-possible position within the international system.
- The Totality is bound to their State by a shared Destiny, a geopolitical mission that manifests itself through specific ideologies, religions, ideas or values.
- The Totality is not a monolithic polity; there can be a multiplicity of competing interests.
The most important detail of all in is that the Intents of Command and Obedience remains active in the relationship between the Totality and the State. Everyone observes their Legal Rights and Legal Duties, their Constitutional Obligations and Constitutional Intents. In return, the State fulfills its Constitutional Obligations and Constitutional Intents for the Totality by upholding its own Legal Rights and Legal Duties. This sort of “Interpersonal Compact” (to use the precise term from The Third Place) is only feasible when the Totality governs their State.
There are at least three well-known instances where such a relationship was apparent in The Work-Standard (2nd Ed.) and The Third Place (1st Ed.). In The Work-Standard, the Totality entrusted the State to act on behalf of the “National Interest” in the international system by acting as the final authority on matters related to international trade. The Real Trade Agreement (RTA) was designed with this specific Intent in mind, which proved helpful in articulating the roles of Shopping Citadel and Shopping Arena in international trade. Another example also comes from The Third Place, where the Totality technically owned all the land in their country on grounds of National Sovereignty and had the State act as the caretaker of vacant lands and buildings until somebody acquired them through one of several known means. To summarize everything discussed so far: the Totality controls the State, the State governs the Totality.
Outside of the economic realm, in the political one, the Totality participates in the political process as part of a functioning Council Democracy. Those who are familiar with the Liberal Theory will recall a “Democratic Peace Theory” derived from the works of Immanuel Kant. The basic premise is that “democratic nations” are less likely to engage in wars against other “democratic nations.” The problem is how the term “democratic nation” is defined because its adherents consistently assumed that the “democratic nations” involved are Liberal Capitalist regimes.
Let’s recall the characteristics of most Liberal Capitalist regimes described in The Third Place:
- An OECD-Type Student Economy where the Student Body has a negligible role in the affairs of national political-economic life and instead prefers to babysit them.
- A Market/Mixed Economy oriented around Production for Profit or Production for Utility.
- A Fractional-Reserve Banking System where either privatized commercial banks or the Central Bank creates a Fiat Currency backed by Schuld.
- A Parliamentary Democracy dominated by the Liberal Capitalists.
- No National Intranet: all digital infrastructure connected to the World Wide Web (WWW).
Politically speaking, Civil Society has no genuine interest in waging war because war is unprofitable for the Market/Mixed Economy and the Fractional-Reserve Banking System. Most wars in the State of Total Mobilization are so expensive that they are oftentimes notorious for creating more Schuld than Kapital. And since Civil Society is more or less involved in the affairs of their Parliament, they have a vested interest in preventing Parliament from declaring any wars.
For Council Democracy, the Totality is prepared for war, but only when it becomes absolutely necessary. They prefer their State to refrain from being too trigger happy because that invites more potential enemies than potential allies. They know that the Military-Industrial Complex’s creation of Military Arbeit and Military Geld during wartime also applies during peacetime. Nothing attracts the hostile reactions of most people than the sights and sounds of a madman gunning down innocents without provocation. The Totality must not become complacent; they always be ready to wage war at a moment’s notice. For the Socialist Conception of Liberty is to be forged and defended on the battlefield.
It is because of those considerations that Council Democracy is not a guarantor of peace inasmuch as Military Arbeit and Military Geld are hardly guarantors of war. The prevailing moods and sentiments of the Totality in their relations to other Totalities will decide whether they will be peace or at war. Through the political process, they can compel the Council State to declare war, but only after enough deliberation has been made at the national legislature, the State Council. On the battlefield itself, the strength of a nation’s Military Arbeit will be tested against the strength of another nation’s Military Arbeit. The one fielding superior Military Arbeit shall prevail.
Due to the inherent nature of Democracy in general, we cannot always assume that every State is going to be considered a “rational actor.” When I use this term “rational actor,” I am referring to the fact that Realist Theory considers nations benefiting their own self-interests as “rational.” Realistically, however, most nations cannot survive on their own. They may have to rely on other nations whose mutual interests align with those of the Totality. Should that be the case, some concessions may need to be arranged in order to convince another nation to align with the Totality.
It precisely within those concessions that the Totality must not perceive International Relations as a zero-sum game. Think of this as being no different than how the RTA advocates for its involved States to avoid trade surpluses and deficits to maintain their freedom of action. The Totality knows it has its own “National Interest” and the same can be said for those of other Totalities. But at the same time, that same National Interest can align with those of another Totality. There should be emphasis on supporting those alignments because they can lead to the establishment of potential cooperation and alliances with other nations. Neither cooperation nor alliances can be achieved without one Totality providing something at the behest of the other Totality and vice versa.
If one Totality is benefiting from the detriment of another, then it is tenable to argue for a breakdown in those alignments. Every Totality should also realize when to break away from its agreements with other nations and pursue its realignments in response to changing circumstances. Those realignments are not always going to appease everyone within the Totality.
Leave a Reply