I got some good news to report. Over the course of the previous week, I managed to begin articulating an alternative Theory of International Relations that aligns with the Work-Standard and the historical data on ARPLAN. Our conclusions that the history of the 20th century could have occurred differently now has a theoretical basis. The IR Theory which I had devised on my Blog is neither Liberal Capitalist nor Marxist-Leninist, seeking to transcend the Neoliberalism’s ideological hegemony over the subdiscipline. In fact, it was meant to accommodate a multiplicity of different ideologies, including the various “Artistic Socialisms” (that is, any Socialism not derived from the works of Marx and Engels).
I chose to call it “Consciousness Theory.” The name itself has grown on me and it best describes the general interpretations and assumptions on how Nations unaligned with Neoliberalism formulate their foreign policies and why they act in certain ways.
The key assumption is that Nations conduct themselves in any prevailing world order with a preconceived “National Interest” which emanates from their “National Consciousness.”
The National Consciousness tells us how a Nation’s Totality presents themselves to other Nations and how they are in turn perceived by them. A Totality does not become a Nation without forging a “National Identity” through their State. Their Nation’s perceptions and attitudes toward other countries is informed by a “National Essence” that binds the Totality and the State to a shared culture, tradition, language, history, social customs and norms.
Supported by their National Identity and National Essence, a Totality’s National Consciousness is what enables their State to formulate its foreign policies as part the “National Interest.” The Totality and the State are bound to a shared Destiny that they define for themselves, existing in a reciprocal relationship where both support each other as the Nation. On my Blog, this idea finds its economic embodiment in the form of the Work-Standard’s Life-Energization Reciprocity (LER) Process and its digital subvariant, the Life-Energization Reciprocal Electrification (LERE) Process. The Totality creates Arbeit from economic activities and receive Geld in return from the State through the direct conversion of Arbeit-into-Geld. A likewise Geld-into-Arbeit procedure also occurs when the State receives Geld from the Totality and converts it into more Arbeit.
On ARPLAN, I do see a recurring pattern of metaphysical thinking on display across various posts. The key difference is that they are often mentioned in specific political terms such as “Community of Fate” or “Community of Essence.” Even so, they all refer back to the same pattern that the Work-Standard has revealed in the contexts of the LER and LERE Processes.
Furthermore, Consciousness Theory’s interpretation of the National Interest differs from the Liberal Capitalist version as it appears among the leading Theories of International Relations. The most obvious difference is that the Realist and Liberal IR Theories conflate the National Interest with “Self-Interest.” Those Theories consistently believed that the National Interest is a zero-sum game where one Totality must exploit another for their own personal gain. They would argue that it was somehow ‘irrational’ for the various authors on the ARPLAN Blog to be advocating for an alliance between the German Reich and the Soviet Union.
In contrast, Consciousness Theory argues that it is possible for Nations to have similar strategic goals driving their respective National Interests. One Nation’s attempts to realize its National Interest on the world stage may potentially benefit the National Interest of another Nation. While this can occur as a result of specific geopolitical or ideological considerations, they can also be achieved by States and their Totalities engaging in mutual dialogue and cooperation. The original ARPLAN itself was one such example.
Moreover, the National Interest is not static and it is possible for the State and the Totality to have competing perspectives. I demonstrated how that could occur when I discussed about Consciousness Theory in relation to “Council States” under Socialism and “Corporate States” under Corporatism. In the Council State and the Corporate State, the Self is capable of becoming an active participant in redefining or recontextualizing the National Interest of their Nation. The former has the Self working with the Totality to define the National Interest for their State in a functioning Council Democracy. The latter, meanwhile, involves the Self advancing the interests of the State in its role as the intermediate between Organized Labor and the Business Community.
Overall, Bogumil, Consciousness Theory has so much latent potential that I can see it as a revolutionary gamechanger on par with the Work-Standard. I am confident that it will provide others with a newfound perspective that they did not realize was possible.