Grand Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Academician Andrei. N. Iezuitov
Recently, many and often at the most different levels and in the most different countries write and talk about the need for a new ‘Peace Keeping’ and a new ‘Peace Making’. And both phenomena and concepts are considered identical, although the ‘World Keeping’ is preferred. Meanwhile, as reality shows, the supporters of the ‘Peace Order’ do not have a fundamental idea of what the ‘Peace Order’ is, in theory and in practice.
‘Philosophy of Interaction’ (PI) will try to understand in principle this difficult and vital question.
Once again, let us turn to the wise and truly enduringly significant judgement of René Descartes: ‘Explain the meanings of words and you will rid the world of half of its delusions’. In this case, ‘delusion’ is really dangerous for the fate of the modern world, even destructive for it and for the life of mankind, material and spiritual, everyone and everything.
Let us begin with the fact that as a phenomenon and as concepts ‘Peace Keeping’ and ‘Peace Making’ are not identical in principle, theoretically and practically.
Etymologically the root words for them are ‘order’ and ‘arrangement’. They have many and comparatively different meanings. At the same time, both the word ‘order’ and the word ‘arrangement’ have, theoretically and practically, a dominant meaning, which the FS will try to identify and explain in relation to ‘Peace Keeping’ and ‘Peace Making’.
‘Order’, in essence, is something external and even to a certain extent coercive, materially and spiritually, in relation to various phenomena, material and spiritual. ‘Order/Keeping’ is established by someone acting for them from the outside. Their definite and comparatively external arrangement is under the constant supervision and control, materially and spiritually, of the one who has established the ‘order’.
We can say that ‘order’ is in a certain sense coercion, as a kind of violence, material and spiritual, over someone and something that is subjected to this or that ordering. ‘Order’ essentially limits the external and internal autonomy of phenomena, material and spiritual.
‘Order’ is essentially something internal, at once stable and relatively independent, materially and spiritually; regulating, materially and spiritually, the state and manifestation of someone and something according to their own nature, material and spiritual, and their own interests, material and spiritual. ‘Order’ is dominated by the external interaction of phenomena, while ‘order’ is dominated by the internal interaction. ‘Order’ is set by someone and is constantly controlled as an unchanging state. ‘device’ presupposes the existence of any real phenomena, material and spiritual, forming in their totality a certain structure, which then allows to give this structure a direction and purpose for its subsequent relatively independent and self-regulating activity, material and spiritual, further systemic development, material and spiritual, and successful functioning, material and spiritual.
‘Order’ is static, ‘arrangement’ is dynamic. ‘Order’ is conservative, ‘device’ is progressive.
To the fullest extent, these fundamentally significant distinctions between ‘order’ and ‘arrangement’ apply to understanding and explaining ‘Peace Order’ and ‘World Making’, especially as supposed new ‘phenomena’.
So, the ‘Peace Keeping’ currently existing is proposed to be changed and ‘renewed’. What is happening and can actually happen.
The modern ‘Peace Keeping’ is based on the idea of superiority of material and spiritual, in essence, as violence, material and spiritual, of some countries over other countries. It was established and relatively long ago in the interests of the hegemonic countries in the world, and in fact one such country as the USA. This hegemony is relatively external and controlling and supervisory, and any deviation from it or disagreement with it, material or spiritual, is at best disapproved by the hegemon country. At worst, they are forcibly eliminated and suppressed.
It should be said that there are some countries in the world that consider themselves ‘great’ (Russia, China) and strive to take, as they believe, a more influential and befitting place in the world than they currently occupy. These include India and Brazil.
Comparatively recently there were two camps (‘poles’) on our planet: the capitalist camp led by the USA and the socialist camp led by the USSR. Now, we can say that China, Vietnam, North Korea, and, in a certain sense, Cuba and Sri Lanka remain from the former socialist camp (‘pole’). In this respect, the world is still ‘bipolar’, however, very relatively.
In a capitalist system established in a dominant world in principle there cannot be several hegemons, and many poles. This is the reality. One country in the world, still the most powerful and in many different ways, is the USA. It still claims to be the hegemon in the world. Any ‘Peace Order’ basically means violence, material and spiritual.
Meanwhile, historically, the very idea of violence in terms of perpetual hegemonism, material and spiritual, has already outlived itself. ‘Monopolarity’ is not viable either. ‘Multipolarity’ is an illusion. We have written about this repeatedly.
‘Monopolarity’ and ‘monopolarity’ as phenomena and as concepts are not identical in the exact sense of the word. Monopolarity is a statement. ‘Monopolarity’ implies certain actions. ‘Bipolarity’ is especially practically actionable. ‘Pole’ – (from Greek Polos – ‘axis’). ‘Axis’ has two (‘bi’) ends. There cannot be more and less of them. In geopolitics there was already an ‘Axis Berlin-Rome’ as an aggressive military alliance. There were also attempts to establish a ‘New Order’ in Europe. By the way, the main postulates of Nazism in all its historical types and manifestations are: ‘The Fuhrer is always right’, ‘The Fuhrer knows everything’, ‘The Fuhrer thinks for us’, ‘we are the executors of the Fuhrer’s will’. No real autonomy of any kind was ever and ever allowed. This, as we are still assured, is the real ‘Order’, necessarily based on violence, material and spiritual, otherwise it cannot be established and preserved.
In 2001 in the Russian Federation was published a book by the founder of the party of Russian fascism ‘Harbin 1931’ K. Rodzaevsky under the eloquent title ‘Testament of the Russian fascist’. P.A. Stolypin was considered ‘the first Russian fascist’. The party emblem was a double-headed eagle on a swastika, the party greeting was ‘Glory to Russia!’. Only in 2010 Rodzayevsky’s book was banned as extremist by Krasnoyarsk court (not Moscow). The book of the ideologist of ‘Russian fascism’ emigrant Ivan Ilyin entitled ‘Our Tasks’ (1948-1954) was also published in the Russian Federation. Ilyin stated his views particularly clearly in his article ‘On Russian Fascism’ (1928), arguing that ‘the spirit of Russian fascists is patriotic, strong-willed, and active.’ Ilyin is now considered almost an official and high authority because he ‘thought of Russia, thought of its future.’ There are still quite a few people in Moscow who consider themselves Russian fascists (calling themselves ‘fa’. As we know, ‘Antifascists’ (antifa), not ‘fa’, have already been brought to trial.
Any new ‘Peace Keeping’ will inevitably and in one way or another be based on violence. Materially and spiritually in our time the world needs ‘Peace keeping’ as ‘bipolarity’, it actually means two ‘ends’ of its essentially ‘peace-loving axis’. Its ‘ends’ can differ significantly, forming one ‘axis’ and interacting materially and spiritually. Of course, on such an ‘axis’ it is not easy for the ‘wheel of history’ to rotate, but it does move forward.
The ends of the ‘axis’ are often called ‘poles’. It is vital for the world to have material and spiritual interaction between the two ‘poles’, in other words, ‘bipolarity’, in order to preserve and strengthen peace on our planet. Most likely, the ‘poles’ will be the USA and China. The so-called multipolar world is actually under the management and leadership of one state, which considers itself the main ‘pole’. Talking about a ‘polycentric world’ is nonsense in general. All ‘poles’ are put forward by who knows who and in which country, which considers itself a special ‘centre’, this is the ‘Secret of Polichinel’.
No country can in principle be a model in all respects for all other countries in our time. A few countries are not able to do this and become a special ‘pole’ either. The situation when one country is on one side and all others are on the other is also unpromising. And some of them also want to be leading for other countries, hiding behind world interests, material and spiritual.
No country can become a ‘counterbalance’, materially and spiritually, to the whole world or even to a group of countries without compromising itself. One should not deceive oneself and deceive others. In any situation and in solving the most different problems, ‘mutual violence’, material and spiritual, cannot be avoided in this case.
A certain ‘Peace Keeping’ has long existed and exists. At the same time, any ‘Peace Keeping’ is not eternal and over time it increasingly reveals its inevitable historical, material and spiritual limitations.
At the Yalta Conference (1945) such a ‘Peace Order’ was laid down, which for a long time, up to our days, determined and determines the fate of the world. However, it can no longer be considered in all respects appropriate to the new time with its material and spiritual needs.
The ‘Peace Keeping’ established in Yalta was aimed at preventing a third world war, and it worked. In the conditions of a real threat (thermonuclear war) the world needs exactly the ‘Peace Making’ to avoid such a war.
The ‘Peace Making’ is in principle a new structure for the world. organising it and controlling it, materially and spiritually.
‘Peace Making’ is positively more effective than ‘Peace Keeping’, theoretically and practically, materially and spiritually. At the same time, ‘Peace Making’ and ‘World making’ to a certain extent, genetically and functionally, can interact in certain historical conditions. The idea of interaction is truly universal. A special question is about the attitude in our time to the alleged ‘Peace Keeping’. ‘Peace Keeping’, in fact, speaking, is a trap for many countries, from which it is difficult for them to get out and a pledge for prosperity for the few ‘self-selected’ countries.
The apologists of the new ‘Peace Making’ are now persons who had various privileges, material and spiritual, under the former ‘Peace Keeping’ and hope to maintain and even increase them under the new ‘Peace Keeping, advertising it in every possible way. They even become hysterical, and this is from powerlessness. Violence is a sign of powerlessness, first of all, spiritual. It is not without reason that it is said: ‘You can’t be nice by force’. ‘Professionalism’ in violence is a surprisingly cynical definition, it is the ‘professionalism’ of murderers. A human being is turned into a ‘target point’ that is subject to ultra-precise destruction, this is called ‘liberation’. It would be more accurate to call it forced and remote ‘liberation from life’. Unfortunately, in the era of universal ‘digitalisation’, when computers are actually entrusted with all decisions, it is unlikely that a person like Lieutenant Colonel S.E. Petrov will appear, who, being on operational duty in spite of alarming signals of devices (radars) by his superhuman endurance (15 minutes) prevented a nuclear war in 1983. He did not give the command to take off the missiles and they did not take off. The instruments made a deadly mistake. The lesson is instructive, man is more reliable and smarter than any device.
A robot, on command, will carry out any violence that is irreversible. The robot has no doubt. Behind everything vital to the world must be a human being, with a positive-human spirituality determining his behaviour, which is in the interest of world peace.
The world order is created by all countries on a common basis for them, such a basis for them is co-operation, material and spiritual, calm and business. ‘Peacebuilding’ is necessary and useful for humanity, for everyone and everything, materially and spiritually.
It is the ‘Peace Keeping’ that opens a fundamentally new, different and promising for mankind, materially and spiritually significant path. The idea of universal and global interaction, material and spiritual, can and should be the basis of such ‘Peace Keeping’. For a certain time it is ‘bipolar’. At the present time they speak and write about ‘structural violence’, individual and social, which is believed to stem from economic, social and political contradictions, and its roots must be sought in the historical and cultural context of society. PI cannot in principle agree with this.
‘The structure of violence’ is the actual expression of different types of violence in their totality (structure), not its ‘source’, and its ‘roots’, not in social and political contradictions and some obscure context, but much deeper.
For FV, violence is rooted in a persistent stereotype of human consciousness, the individual becoming social and the social having an individual manifestation. In the irresistible belief that the source of all development and all victory is struggle as violence, material and spiritual (who-who). The exacerbation and intensification in our time of various contradictions exacerbates and intensifies violence as a norm of human consciousness and behaviour in their interaction. To eradicate violence (who-who-who), it is necessary, in essence, to change the stereotype of human consciousness that determines human behaviour, to actually abandon it, replacing it with the ‘categorical imperative’ (nobody-nobody), which, in principle, is relatively easy to do with purposeful positive and spiritual-willed effort. Violence in this case, too, is internally irresistible. That is why violence itself constantly feels fear for what it has done and hides its own losses and damages and its responsibility for them. Violence arouses and generates not the best human feelings: envy and superiority, cruelty and gloating, irrepressible ambition and megalomania, boasting and impunity. It is not without irony that they say: ‘you have the power, you don’t need the wit’. Violence does not adorn and does not adorn, violence is not something to be proud of – it must be overcome externally and internally, materially and spiritually, and this really helps to do interaction – the antipode of violence materially and spiritually.
Violence is a coercive influence materially and spiritually on the existing, in any form and quantity.
In interaction organically and voluntarily, materially and spiritually, all countries of the world are included regardless of their size and degree of development, material and spiritual. No problem in the relations between different countries can and should not be solved by any violence, material and spiritual, of one country over another country. All countries are sovereign, and violence, material and spiritual, is inapplicable to all countries, while the measure of sovereignty of different countries may be different due to various socio-historical conditions. Sovereignty as independence is not an end in itself. It does not exclude at all, but presupposes interaction between countries, and in various spheres, to make sovereignty really effective and vital for sovereign countries all together and each separately.
Sovereignty – a long and stable real state, practically expressed. Sovereignty – a fixation of a certain historical period, and a legal status as an assumed and proposed norm. The right to sovereignty, in essence, need not be defended – it is globally legitimised – but it is not at all a right to any violence, ostensibly in defence of one’s sovereignty.
Violence is indeed infinite, but opposition to it is also infinite, and it is indeed omnipotent. No violence can stand against life, and life is a constant and self-reproducing interaction between material and spiritual principles.
Violence and the material are more precious than opposition to it.
Interaction, material and spiritual, is a real way for mutually useful and mutually beneficial settlement of any disagreements and claims, material and spiritual, existing between countries and regions. Interaction, material and spiritual, does not prevent this, but on the contrary, it paves the most diverse and specific real ways for such settlement.
The main thing is to never, nowhere, in anything, under any circumstances not to lose sight of the common goal for everything and everyone, namely, interaction, material and spiritual, of all and with all, completely excluding any violence, material and spiritual, of some countries (regions) over other countries (regions). What will be the specific structure of power under the ‘World Order’ in each country and on a global scale is a special question that requires special research. At the same time, all violence, material and spiritual, is excluded. The truly unprecedented ‘Peace Making’ is a comprehensive interaction, material and spiritual, and it is in such a ‘Paece Making’ that the modern world vitally needs, so that it can fearlessly exist and successfully develop, materially and spiritually.
Interaction in essence is a complementarity, mutual enrichment, mutual refinement and partial mutual transition into each other forming the interaction and participating in it of different principles, ultimately, material and spiritual. Interaction excludes violence, material and spiritual.
Spiritual beginning is an inner attitude (readiness, predisposition) inherent in all real phenomena, i.e. existing outside and independent of their perception, direct and mediated, and oriented to its material expression.
All talk of ‘openness’ remains talk without real interaction, materially and spiritually. It is interaction that is truly open and stable, materially and spiritually.
It is time to stop being ‘deluded’ by those, if they can and will, who dream of a new ‘World Keeping’ ‘for themselves and for their own’. History has not yet said, and it will say its weighty word: ‘to be or not to be’ a new ‘Peace Making.
No ‘Peace Keeping’ in the exact sense of the word has yet existed, and it will turn out to be ‘new’ to the Peace in principle.
© ANDREI IEZUEITOV
30.06.2022
