The End of History Is Upon Us

I read an article about the demonstration of China's new found naval power. Specifically, it is about the Philippines anxiety concerning the aggression of the aforementioned power. A Filipino sought out the U.S. (unofficially) for reassurance if China were to occupy contested northern islands in the South Chinese Sea. The article can be found here.

China is attempting to strengthen its navy in order to compete with the all-powerful U.S. navy. The U.S., after-all, has the largest and strongest navy in the world. The ultimate plan is to be dominant in the Pacific and Indian oceans by the year 2040.

There seems to be two possible end goals at work here when it comes to the expansion of military power on the part of China: One, they may just want to be able to compete with the U.S. for the purposes of ensuring their own safety. In addition, that assurance would serve as a reinforcement of the Chinese sphere of influence; they would gain more dominance in the region. The capitalist countries of the world would remain safe and would still possess their unofficial leader.

Two and conversely, they wish to dominate the U.S. in order to jeopardize our own safety; in a way, in order to reverse the roles. They wish to become the dominate global superpower and threaten the sovereignty of other nations, install despotic regimes anywhere at-a-whim, and masquerade as a false arbiter of peace and justice just as the U.S. does now. With Chinese dominance so-too would Communism dominate; the anti-egalitarian, red spectre of Lenin would rise with a vengeance and spread everywhere perverted Marxist doctrines. The Cold War would have been "won" in vain.

Of the two, both seem like they are going to happen. Not meaning that they are both equally probable, but rather they are both going to happen simultaneously (that's right; I presented a false dichotomy on purpose).

First off, it is next-to-impossible for the world's capitalist, market orientated economy to tumble, and I mean this in a pejorative sense. The applicability of the Marxist revolution, the idea that is integral to Marx's thought, died at the moment of the Bolshevik Revolution, to quote Michel Foucault, "Marxism exists in 19th century thought like a fish in water: that is, unable to breathe anywhere else." This is not a condemnation of Marx, nor is it polemic against his work or an affirmation of Capitalism, but rather a pessimistic forecast of the bleak future.

Which leads to the next point: When China succeeds us as the preeminent super-power, as they likely will, they will do so with the full support of Capitalism at their back. Already, one can observe the Capitalization of China. They are moving toward a market economy.

So, back to the aforementioned point "one", they will expand militarily until they are satisfied with the size and security of their sphere of influence. Then the unofficial leader of the Capitalist world will remain, just as a different country: China. In a way, China will become a supporter of the West.

"Two" is perhaps more obvious. The spectre of Lenin would not rise, as China would no longer adhere to that faith; indeed it does not currently adhere to that faith. China will likely become the dominate super-power and fulfill every role associated thereof, but it will do so not purely militarily. It will become dominate by means of economic power.

Though it was hinted, it was never explicitly stated why the future likely is bleak.

There now exists no Other with which the West struggles against. This may be viewed as a positive thing, if one is completely satisfied with the situation the world is in now. However, any person with any concern at all towards others and with an open-eye towards the disparaged masses of the world ought not be even remotely satisfied. Without the Other, or the potentiality thereof, the exists no possible way to smash the chains of servitude that is global-market-capitalism.

The Other is the force working against a ubiquitous market-oriented global economy. In the past, this role was primarily fulfilled by the Soviet Union and Friends. Now, there is no force with enough power to compete with the global economy. Hence, the reason as to why there is no successful Other.

Without the Other to oppose it, the West - that is, the force promoting a ubiquitous market-oriented global economy - will surely reign supreme. The West will consolidate its already-tight stranglehold on the economies, and thus the citizens, of the world's countries. With its new established preeminence, the West will ascend into God-hood; we will exalt the West and to some degree we already have. This stranglehold will remain regardless of the petty wars, genocides, and economic panics that ensue down below, as the West is now above this plane; it has now been synergized and fetishized.

The bleakness of this future, if not already apparent, will be explained here: no more will there be earth-shattering events; no more Berlin Walls, Mongol Invasions, or Enlightenments. History, as the study of meaningful events in our past, is dead. There is no longer any meaningful events that can happen. We are stuck.

Moreover, this does not mean an end to violence, genocides, and other calamities that are widely considered atrocities. It means the meaning - the reason, that which gave these a shred of value - behind these atrocities is dead. Indeed violence will remain, just in an arbitrary pointless form.

The reason for the dissymmetry between the words "Other" and "West" is due to the force that will - and indeed has - try to take up the mantel of the U.S.S.R. This force is not Russia or China, the EU, or a yet-unnamed global-superpower candidate, but rather the various militant insurgents, secular or otherwise, that will attempt to harm and destroy the West. Essentially, an force that opposes that of the West is the Other; the Other is defined as not-West.

The insurgency cannot succeed. They are disunited and have no means by which to exaltify (exalt) an ideology to compete with the West. In order to pose a threat, it requires there to be two (or more) ideologies on the same level. Insurgents do not posses the ability to fetishize and synergize their respective ideological forces enough. Hence they cannot compete.

Even Islamic extremism bows down before the might of the West. For example, Saudi Arabia has Gender Equality laws that make Iran look like San Francisco. If anywhere ought to have a strong resistance to the West in the form of Islamic extremism it is Saudi Arabia. But yet, Saudi Arabia is close - too close - to the West. The West trumps some of the most devout Islamic extremism in the world.

The ascension of the West does no mean the inevitable world-wide liberal democratic movement, quite the contrary. The countries which are already devout in their following of the West are getting more authoritarian, less democratic. Look at institutions like the N.S.A., or look at countries like the U.K., Russia, Germany, and the best example: the U.S. People will be, and are being, stripped of their meaningful ways to impact politics, and more importantly economics.

Even if people overthrew their own national government, it would matter not. The governments under the West are just that: under the West. The government is gone but its master remains.

With the reduction of the people's political power, their political-will will be vicariously channeled to reinforce the West, by buying things. People will express their sovereignty by choosing what to buy and how much to spend. We will live in an ever-more increasingly consumerist culture.

Any meaning that our lives once had is gone. With the destruction of progress and change there is no well from which to draw meaning into our lives. Our lives will be lived by buying things and by supporting the very thing that enslaves us.

In sum, it matters not whether China becomes the next big superpower, because they will become the embodiment of the force which we were previously the surrogate. Nothing meaningful will have changed. Moreover, nothing now can change because all other Others are scattered and weak, and any choice made from within the West results in the reinforcement of the West. So, it is the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Marijuana and Mexico

The article, found here, is about a new law in Mexico aimed at decriminalizing marijuana in Mexico City. In addition, a new law on the federal level was also introduced that would allow for medicinal marijuana.

I support legalization of marijuana especially in violence-infested countries like Mexico. This is a step in the right direction towards total legalization. Legalization will likely decrease the amount of violence in Mexico by some degree and will certainly decrease the the incarceration rate of people in Mexico, thus freeing precious resources to be used in other, more useful areas such as education. Education will lead to less violence and lower drug usage rates overall which is immanently desirable.

Russia, Ukraine, the EU, and the US

I read an article from Reuters, found here, that details the conflict currently occurring in Ukraine between western, pro-EU, liberal protesters and the eastern, pro-Russia, government-supporting populace. Russia accuses the U.S. of arming the Ukrainian "rebels" (the pro-EU side). Furthermore, Russia advises the Ukrainian government to use military and police forces to put down the attempted "coup". Washington accuses the Russian government of pressuring Ukraine to not join the EU by threatening economic sanctions.

The internal conflict between the pro-European and the pro-Russian in Ukraine interests me. The Ukraine, more than any other former soviet republic with the exception of Russia, wishes to be back in the USSR. However, that sentiment is primarily among those that hold nationalistic (but not too nationalistic) and generally conservative viewpoints. Ukraine was the second strongest economy in the old USSR and was also one of the most influential. There are only minor differences in the ethnic make-ups of Ukrainians and Russians; they are both Slavic peoples, and Kiev was actually the seat of the first "Russian" empire. So, naturally Ukrainians, at least historically, have had a relatively easy time integrating with the Russian overlords.

The pro-EU side of things perhaps has a better argument for Ukraine to join the EU in economic terms of mutual benefit. The EU, when all of the countries lying within are taken into account, has the largest economy in the world by quite-a-bit, and most developing countries that join the EU benefit greatly. In addition, there is a general trend in the world's history towards the creation of larger sovereign entities - the trend toward cosmopolitanism. Similar to what Diogenes of Sinope once famously declared, our polis is becoming the world.

The EU, undoubtedly, has some selfish desires to satisfy in this situation; the aspiration of a European Union involving Ukraine is not altruistic. The roots of the EU lie in the attempt to compete with and triumph over the United States economically. Europeans needed to band together to even compete with the US. What better way to assist the EU in this task than by admitting another nation, and a nation with an already strong economy at that. So, the reason why the EU would accept Ukraine into its fold is likely at-least partially motivated by their own personal benefit, not what would be best for the Ukrainian people.

Russia made the declaration that the US is arming the so-called Ukrainian rebels. Now, normally I tend to take the anti-US side of things, and we have been known to topple sovereign - even democratically elected - regimes in the past, but Russia likely is exaggerating there claim that the US is arming the rebels. If the dichotomy, that Ukraine can either join the EU or join the CIS, is presented, then the US doesn't have any clear strategic choice in the matter. The two different ways neither help nor directly harm the US. If Ukraine joins with Russia, then our rival (but not enemy), will gain influence and power, but the Russian economy is still far weaker than ours. If Ukraine joins the EU, then our greatest economic competitor becomes stronger, but we are on friendly terms with Europe and militarily they do not pose a threat. So, why then would the US have such a compelling concern regarding the outcome of this Ukrainian dilemma either way?

The far more likely reason that Russia would make such an assertion is that it wants the Ukrainian government to react against the rebels in its favor. If the Ukrainian government subdues the rebels, so to will the major opposition against a closer economic relationship with Russia be subdued.