The end of history
Since the beginning of human history, starting from before the existance of societies, going to the beginning of basic human relations to the more complex and larger societies we have to day, we can clearly see one tendancy: centralisation of power and the desire of hegemonical power.
Then there is this state talked about by many prophets, religions and Marx being some of the prime examples. The communist state being this kind of earthly paradise religions would talk about. But all communists have been mistaken, you cannot create this earthly paradise, it is a natural evolution. I think that is what Marx had seen, the eventual communist state, the end of history - when bureaucracy will lead our lives, and human decisions toward the state will have no more weight at all. This process has been started long ago, through the first written laws and the evolution of these and then through constitutions, charts, etc. but is very far from being over. From this we can safely say that the present and past communisms were very far from the prophetic communism, due to it's governemental nature where human decisions were above laws (human decisions can refer to a dictator, as long as the decisions emanate from a human and not from a bureaucratic process).
Then we can observe the phemenon of centralisation and the will to hegemonical power. Examples of this are too numerous to be named because it happened as well on small scales as on large scales, but the Persians empire at about 500 B.C is a very good example of this on a large scale, but an example that failed (thanks to the greeks at the battle of Marathon and then Thermopylae and Salamis). Another good example of it, one that succeeded during a while was the roman empire, but humanity was not ready for this, mainly because of the lack of knowledge and technological means, and finally fell. There have been so many examples of this since then, the mongols under Ghenghis Khan, Napoleon, european empires, WW2's Germany, modern America (and don't start saying I am comparing modern america to nazis, because I'm not, saying I am is using completly flawled logic), etc. But these are examples that have failed, are failing and are deemed to fail for a while, because only when humanity will be ready for it it will possibly work, and it won't be through military conquests, economical or ideological conquests. On this point, military conquests which once was the norm is a dying breed, for many reasons which I will not cite here because I don't feel like it, and could form a subject by it's own. Economical conquest has been the norm for some time, and America has been a prime example of this, but this also is something that will not be possible eventually because of the interdependance that is being created between nations. Ideological conquests is something that has been tried a lot, but that is going to be the warfare of the future for still a good while. Is there other means of conquests? Probably some will appear, but only when those kind of conflicts will all disapear (and they will at some point) will this communist state, this earthly paradise or whatever other name you want to give it will be possible.
The UNO (and before, the League of Nations) is an interesting innovation toward this. A kind of draft of global government, which is an important step in this evolution, because only when there will be a global government the final step will be possible. Something also very interesting is that the UNO is much more subject to bureaucracy than any state which makes it a more evolved form of government (even if it is not really a government, but is a step toward it). So we see this is a step toward centralisation. The EU is also a good example of this centralisation and it's tendency is always through a more important centralisation. Many examples of this can be cited, but the point is made and there is no need to explain further.
Even if we can clearly see hints of thise, we are still in a primitive state and only when ressources will not prove themselves limited for the satisfaction of people's needs, when we will have a global centralised government and when bureaucracy will detain all power and be sufficient to run everything without the intervention of human decisions will we then face this situation. Why do I call this the end of history? Simply because history is the sum of human decisions.
Is this something that we should look forward to? Or is this something that we must prevent? I find that having an opinion on this is very hard, and it is one of the rare things I cannot express an opinion on. Marx wold say it is a good thing, but Nietzsche would say the inverse (for him the paradise would be the inverse, the glorification of history, the death of bureaucracy and the deification of human decisions). Preventing the natural course of things is something possible, making it take a step back or at least to slow down the process is possible. The solution to it is destruction, and it has already happened more than once (destruction of roman empire, destruction of the library of Alexandria, etc.)
This is basically just the draft of a theory I have thought of without making any further researches, but basically I just wanted to express the general idea of it without making a thesis out of it...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea
