Jarosław Tomasiewicz : "The world system is not just"
Jarosław Tomasiewicz
The world system is not just
(Interview with famous Polish political scientist done by N. Speranskaya)
- What is your view of the modern world order/international system? Do you consider the current world order to be ‘just’? If yes, then why? If no, how do you think it might be changed? Is it already changing?
- No, the world system is not just. Why? Because this system is highly hierarchical, and in every system, the Core exploits the Periphery. However I can't imagine any truly non-hierarchical system.
- What is your opinion of theories of an American global Hegemony or Unipolarity? How does globalization relate to this? Is it a blessing in disguise or a curse for the people of our planet? What, in your opinion, is the primary characteristic of this Hegemony/dominance: military, cultural, economic, or some other factor or combination of factors?
- The American hegemony is a complex of economic, political, military and cultural factors -- they reinforce each other. But in my opinion the USA is not a cause but only a tool of globalization. The problem is not the USA but dehumanizing influence of global technocracy. Imperium Mundi is not a "greater USA" but an ideological project of the "open society" (an "invisible empire" or "virtual community" without territory or society) and the USA is only the material basis ("arm") of this Imperium [1]. Like the USSR was the "fatherland of world's proletariat" - the USA is the "fatherland of world's upper middle class" [2]. Of course, the USA is predestined to the role of the vehicle of liberalism because this is the nation without tradition.
- What countries, groups of countries, or social and political forces might be able to challenge American Hegemony and how?
- The strength of the Core lies in its central position - there is no system without the Core and various Periphery elements are in opposition not only towards the Core but also towards each other. I don't know if there is any possibility for (e.g.) a Moscow-Beijing axis - is convergence stronger than antagonism? The only real counterweight to the Core could be a broad coalition of all Periphery elements but that coalition has no ideological binder. Such a coalition needs an ideological alternative to liberal universalism - a "pan-particularism" that appreciates every difference. But this ideology would be infected by relativism and therefore will become a copy of liberal multiculturalism.
- What do you think about the ideas of Globalism (i.e., a ‘One World’ world government) and/or global governance? Is such either possible or desirable?
- I think the idea of global government is simply utopian. I don't think global governance is possible - but in my opinion globalist elites are interested only in control of some strategic points and branches that make it unable to create any alternative center of power. 6a. In my opinion no single theory could explain reality. We should use a combination of the civilizational theory of Feliks Koneczny (modified but simplified by Samuel Huntington); the dependency theory (developed into the "world-system" theory by Immanuel Wallerstein); the biopolitical concept of Leszek Moczulski; and classical geopolitical theories.
- Is a multipolar world order possible? What might a multipolar world order in the modern era look like? Would a multipolar world order be preferable to a unipolar or bipolar world order? Why or why not?
- Of course, a multipolar world is possible - we could see multipolarity before 1939. A multipolar world could be better than a unipolar one – but it could be worse. Multipolarity could be both violent rivalry or stable balance and harmonious development.
- What defines a ‘pole’ in international relations theory? How do you correlate the concept of a ‘pole’ with other structural concepts of international relations analysis such as ‘the sovereign state’, ‘Empire’ and, ‘Civilization(s)’? Is sovereignty, as a concept, being challenged by globalization and global governance? Is ‘Civilizational Theory’ valid as a conceptual tool in the study of international relations?
- In my opinion no single theory could explain reality. We should use a combination of the civilizational theory of Feliks Koneczny (modified but simplified by Samuel Huntington); the dependency theory (developed into the "world-system" theory by Immanuel Wallerstein); the biopolitical concept of Leszek Moczulski; and classical geopolitical theories. I know that sovereignty is never absolute but I also know that nation-states are more persistent than empires. Most of the contemporary European nation-states exist since a thousand years ago; do you know of any empire so old in Europe?
- How do you see the role of your country in a possible multipolar system?
- My vision is a hierarchical "system of the systems": Poland in the system of Central-Eastern Europe and CEE in the system of Eurasia and Eurasia in the multipolar world system. But I am afraid of the idea of the "Eurussia" (Union of Europe and Russia). I don't think Eurussia will be alternative for the USA and the "American way of life" – rather , it would be a bigger European Union, another technocratic empire, the "USA 2.0".
- Which tendencies of modern world development do you consider to be positive and which negative? What, in your opinion, could be done to alleviate the negative or enhance the positive?
- I see far more negative than positive trends: ecological devastation, demographical collapse, technological possibilities for total control of the population [3], disintegration of social links and anomie within societies, ethical crisis, Coca-Colocaust of local cultures, transhumanist genetic engineering... It is like entropy.
- Is there a realistic threat of a Third World War? What would this entail?
- I think that World War III has been in progress since 2001 [4]. This is an undeclared, chaotic, network-centric, asymmetrical but very real war.
- Please share with us your vision of the ‘desired tomorrow’ for your country, civilization, and the world in general.
- I hope we will survive.
