Civilizational-States: Self-Determination of The Peoples?
by Zoltanous
Introduction
In the current epoch, numerous self-proclaimed nationalists are oblivious to the fact that their ideology is steeped in the liberal tradition, thus failing to achieve their purported goals. They often misconceive "Globalism" as merely a synonym for "world governance," while holding the belief that their liberal version of "nationalism" is the antidote. It is critical to recognize that "Globalism" represents a secular, liberal order, with the Atlanticist West at its helm, principally administered by the liberal democracies, with Washington D.C. as the epicenter of this American-centric empire. The concept of "Nationalism" is frequently invoked without a true grasp of its historical roots. Born out of the 18th century, nationalism was initially a tool of the Jacobin revolutionaries designed to dismantle the old-world order of medieval Europe. It is intrinsically tied to the emergence of the bourgeois "Nation-State," which rose to prominence post the Treaty of Westphalia. Though later eras saw "Nationalism" being co-opted by staunch anti-liberals, it is imperative to acknowledge that its inception served the advancement of liberal and secular humanist agendas.
The Jacobin version of nationalism was an early harbinger of globalism. Those who stand against globalism today cannot effectively do so from a traditional nationalist perspective. They must re-evaluate their perspective and cultivate a reformed sense of nationalism, one that has shed the liberal creeds of "absolute national sovereignty.” Realizing these subtleties points to a path of resistance that diverges from the nation-state construct, instead gravitating towards the Aristocratic Civilization-State paradigm. This approach entails the synthesis of the proletariat into "Aristo-Proletarianism." Such a philosophy should be the guiding force behind authentic anti-liberal nationalisms and internationalisms, driving towards a harmonious multipolarity characterized by a tapestry of Civilization-States, each upholding and reinforcing the identities and sovereignties of communities that stand against the tide of modern globalism.
Why The Civilizational Model?
In his 1915 pamphlet titled The Revolutionary Proletariat and The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, Vladimir Lenin eloquently portrayed the circumstances prevailing in Russia during the 19th and early 20th centuries: “Russia is a prison of peoples.” Throughout this period, Russian civilization extended beyond its traditional borders, incorporating diverse peoples through military conquest, resulting in the formation of one of history's largest empires. However, it's crucial to note that within the Russian Empire at the turn of the 20th century, none of these peoples possessed inherent sovereignty or political rights. Lenin acknowledged the importance of this issue and articulated it in his writings. He recognized the imperative for the revolutionary proletariat to advocate for the right of nations to self-determination. This principle underscores that each nation, irrespective of its size, holds the inherent right to determine its political destiny and exercise sovereignty over its affairs. Lenin's acknowledgment of this right demonstrates his understanding of the diverse ethnic and cultural mosaic within the Russian Empire. His call for the empowerment of these nations to shape their futures stands as a testament to his progressive and inclusive vision.
Lenin asserted that for the Russian working class to lead a successful democratic revolution and to join European workers in a socialist revolution, it must unequivocally support the right of all nations oppressed by Tsarist rule to separate and become independent from Russia. Manifesting an unwavering allegiance to his ideological convictions, Lenin transformed his theoretical constructs into tangible reality. On the 15th of November in the year 1917, the nascent Russian-Soviet authority promulgated a seminal manifesto, The Declaration of The Rights of The Peoples of Russia, a document that crystallized pivotal tenets that would undergird the regime's approach to governance. This declaration was not a mere formalistic gesture; it was a doctrinal compass comprising critical axioms designed to steer the government's course of action. These axioms were not only declarations but were also intended to be the bedrock upon which the Soviet government would erect its policy framework, sculpting the political landscape of the new Russia and its relationship with the mosaic of ethnicities within its orbit.
Its primary essence can be encapsulated as follows:
Equality and sovereignty for all Russian peoples.
Right to self-determination and secession for Russian peoples.
Elimination of national and religious privileges and restrictions.
Free development for national minorities and ethnographic groups in Russia.
Complete integration and assimilation of all Russian peoples into the Soviet System.
In the intricate geopolitical tapestry that unfolded following the ascent of Soviet power, it is imperative to recognize the nuanced historical moment when a constellation of nations, among them Latvia and Ukraine, chose to detach themselves from the Soviet matrix and forge their own separate, non-Soviet polities. These emergent states encountered tribulations from without and within, as ideological schisms gave rise to internal factions that echoed the Soviet narrative, thereby challenging the very essence of their nascent sovereignty.
To the cursory observer, these incursions might be construed as a paradoxical maneuver by the Leninist regime, belying its own principles. Yet, to truly penetrate the depths of such a historical conundrum, one must engage with further segments of Lenin's 1915 discourse, seeking therein the submerged strata of his ideological stance. Only through such a comprehensive hermeneutic effort can one access the profound undercurrents that informed and justified the Soviet posture vis-à-vis these fledgling republics, as they stood at the crossroads of self-determination and the overarching Soviet vision for a new world order.
“This we demand, not independently of our revolutionary struggle for socialism, but because this struggle will remain a hollow phrase if it is not linked up with a revolutionary approach to all questions of democracy, including the national question. We demand freedom of self-determination, i.e., independence, i.e., freedom of secession for the oppressed nations, not because we have dreamt of splitting up the country economically, or of the ideal of small states, but, on the contrary, because we want large states and the closer unity and even fusion of nations, only on a truly democratic, truly internationalist basis, which is inconceivable without the freedom to secede.”
— Vladimir Lenin, Lenin Collected Works
Within the vast expanse of the Russian Federation, a tapestry of ethnicities and national identities weaves together, distinct from the ethnic Russian majority. These diverse groups, often known as "non-Russian peoples," possess unique linguistic, cultural, and historical identities. As the inheritor of the Soviet Union's legacy, the Russian Federation acknowledges the existence of these nationalities and has enacted measures to safeguard and nurture their distinct cultural identities and self-governance.
The Federation's structure accommodates autonomous republics, regions, and districts, each home to specific ethnic communities. These areas are granted a spectrum of autonomy, enabling them to uphold their native languages in official capacities and to perpetuate their cultural legacies. Moreover, the Russian Federation has instituted policies aimed at bolstering economic growth and social welfare within these territories, striving to rectify historical disparities and to enhance the quality of life for all inhabitants, irrespective of ethnicity. One must recognize the complexities the Russian Federation faces as a multi-ethnic state in honoring the rights and ambitions of its varied ethnic groups. The endeavor to sustain cohesion and stability, while also validating the rights of different nationalities, necessitates persistent dialogue, collaboration, and inclusive governance. The Russian authorities persist in their pursuit of a cohesive society that cherishes and defends the interests of all its constituents, including the non-Russian ethnic groups.
The Soviet paradigm of ethnic republics endures within the contemporary framework of the Russian Federation, which comprises eighty-five federal subjects, including twenty-two republics such as Dagestan, Chechnya, and Bashkortostan. Moreover, nations like Belarus, Armenia, and Kazakhstan, though not formally acknowledged as sovereign states, are intricately woven into the Eurasian Economic Union. The Russian Federation, an amalgam of states with Russia at its nucleus, serves as an exemplary model of self-determination for peoples, emancipated from the rigid confines imposed by 20th-century Marxist and Nationalist ideologies.
A map of the Russian Federation’s semi-autonomous republics
Martin Jacques, a distinguished British journalist with a deep understanding of China, has been influential in defining the concept of the "civilization state." In his book When China Rules The World, he contrasts China's short history as a nation state of roughly 150 years with its ancient civilization stretching back millennia. Jacques highlights the civilizational state is marked by entrenched cultural norms such as Confucian values and the intricate relationship between the written and spoken Chinese language. In the eyes of the Chinese, "China" evokes their civilization, with its ancient dynasties and philosophical roots, rather than a simple political entity. Jacques' notion is reinforced by Vladimir Lapkin, who reflects on non-Western civilizations' response to Western universalism by harnessing their indigenous cultural assets.
Jacques further distinguishes China as a unique civilization state, featuring a continuous identity that is not mirrored by other historical civilization states such as India, and certainly distinct from the relatively recent civilization legacy of the United States. Challenging Western perceptions, Jacques questions the idea of China as a highly centralized state, instead proposing that due to its size and complexity, governance has always required a more adaptive approach, a sentiment mirrored in Russia's federated system. Jacques posits that while some countries clearly fit the mold of nation states, others, like China, embody characteristics of both nation states and civilization states. This view is encapsulated in Lucian Pye's assertion that China is a "civilization pretending to be a nation-state," with the implication that some civilization states may not primarily identify as nation-states.
Building on Jacques’ arguments, the ancient Chinese concept of Tianxia, or "all under heaven," has historically positioned China as a central force in the world, suggesting a blend of divine and earthly governance. This historical perspective is not just a relic of the past but is also reflected in modern initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, which echoes the Tianxia principle of a China-centric global order. China's commitment to this civilizational heritage is also evident in its approach to internet governance, where it enforces cyber sovereignty and controls its digital borders to protect its cultural identity. This focus on cultural continuity is a testament to China's dedication to sustaining its civilizational ethos. Through these actions, China demonstrates how its ancient philosophies continue to inform and guide its engagement with the world today, underscoring the lasting impact of the civilization state concept.
The Civilization-State interacts with the world yet eschews any reliance; it asserts its self-reliance, sovereignty, and autarky. It transcends the limited frameworks of space and time as understood by modernist statecraft, instead emerging as a living, breathing organism that is unbounded by the constraints of temporality and spatiality. It adapts to the exigencies of existence while steadfastly preserving its ontological core and wholeness. Within the philosophical framework of the Civilization-State, the conventional measures of time and space are considered to be secondary, as they fail to encompass the true depth of a civilization's being and substance. The Civilization-State is predicated on the notion of an everlasting now, a perpetual moment of existence that defies the linear construct of time, where divisions are seen as ephemeral and deceptive, a play of temporal shadows. In this worldview, the rigid concepts and orthodoxies of universal rights are obsolete; rather, it is the principle of personalism that arises as an intrinsic imperative. The legalistic and progressive ideals that are foundational to the modern Nation-State concede to a higher regard for virtue ethics and the philosophy of perennialism. This profound divergence delineates the intrinsic cultural contrasts between the Civilization-State and the modern Nation-State, revealing their fundamental disparities in spiritual, psychological, sociological, economic, and ecological dimensions.
While the legacy of Soviet Russia did not persist into the 21st century, the model of the Civilization-State remains a source of profound insights for today's global landscape, particularly for the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China. These nations epitomize the Civilization-State, repudiating both conventional Nationalism and Globalism. Their capacity to counter the Atlanticist dominance stems from their rejection of liberal doctrines that leave them vulnerable to external manipulation. The liberal factions in the West frequently call for a "decolonization of Russia" and lend support to anti-Russian nationalist movements under the guise of "self-determination." This is evident in their backing of "Ukrainian Nationalism" when it serves to weaken the Russian Federation. Similarly, they employ divisive strategies against China through rallying cries of "Taiwanese Nationalism" and the "defense of Human Rights in Hong Kong."
Consider the potential uproar if Russia and China were to openly support and encourage secessionist movements like "Southern Dixie independence" within the United States. It is questionable whether the same liberal proponents of "Ukrainian self-determination" or "Taiwanese self-determination" would embrace the idea of a "Southern right to self-determination." These scenarios lay bare the novel geopolitical complexities of the 21st century that demand thorough scrutiny and strategic thought. To effectively oppose Globalism, one cannot rely on any strain of liberal nationalism or internationalism. Battling Globalism requires a commitment to authentically anti-liberal forms of nationalism and internationalism. The old dialectic of nationalism versus internationalism has withered, giving way to a new dynamic: Globalism against Civilizationism. Within this fresh paradigm, various expressions of nationalism and internationalism can coexist, yet they are distinguished by their liberal or anti-liberal character. Globalism is the banner under which liberal nationalism and internationalism unite, whereas Civilizationism is the domain of anti-liberal nationalism and internationalism. This distinction is set to shape the geopolitical narrative of the 21st century and potentially beyond.
Both Russia and China are intrinsically diverse entities. Vladimir Putin, in acknowledging the inherent plurality within Russia, emphasizes the value of every ethnic community. Nevertheless, radical segments of Russian nationalism threaten this mosaic, promoting an exclusionary "Russia for Russians" stance that seeks to destabilize the cohesion that Putin has assiduously cultivated. Likewise, China esteems the multitude of ethnicities within its borders, valuing their unique cultural, customary, traditional, and religious contributions. While protecting their rights, China expects allegiance to the national collective, precluding external influences from disrupting its unity. The kinship between Russia and China is partly rooted in their mutual respect for internal diversity. As Americans, we would do well to heed Putin's counsel on the importance of fostering unity through diversity. His insights remind us that the embrace of diverse identities is fundamental to the prosperity and harmony of any Civilization-State.
“Caveman nationalism, with the slogan ‘Russia is only for Russians,’ only harms Russians, only harms Russia, we shouldn't allow this to happen. Of course, we must make sure that the culture of every nation, its history, and roots of every nation is respected and honored in our country.”
— Vladimir Putin quoted in Putin Slams Caveman Nationalism by Russia Today
The formation of American identity can be likened to a tapestry woven from diverse cultural, ethnic, and racial threads, echoing the nature of Russian self-perception. Both have developed as Civilization-States, with identities that transcend simple racial or ethnic classifications. Historically, empires have expanded their cultural majorities by assimilating new members into their societies. The Roman Empire, for instance, was notable for its ability to incorporate conquered peoples, granting them avenues to Roman citizenship, which in turn enriched the empire's cultural fabric. The Chinese model of identity, with the Emperor presiding over a Confucian-structured society, also exemplified a broad and inclusive sense of belonging, demanding loyalty above all.
India stands as a quintessential example of a Civilization-State, and it continues to hold the promise of becoming a formidable presence in global affairs. The Islamic world, stretching from Indonesia to Morocco, embodies a vast civilization, but its division into various nation-states and cultural niches complicates the prospect of political unification. Although Islamic civilization has given rise to numerous Civilization-States throughout history — including the successive Caliphates, segments of Genghis Khan's empire, the Safavid Empire, the Mughal Empire, and the Ottoman Empire — the legacy of these entities' boundaries persists, and their potential unification faces considerable obstacles. Similarly, the macro-civilizations of Latin America and Africa are also dispersed, but the emerging multipolar world will foster unity within these regions.
In America, national identity has continued to evolve inclusively, even in the wake of conflicts such as the Mexican-American War and those involving Native American nations. The Hispanic population has become an integral part of the American fabric, while Native Americans have adopted a strong sense of American nationalism despite historical hardships. Civilizations have an inherent drive to expand, consolidating a shared identity that propels them toward territorial growth, motivated by resource acquisition, prestige, or both. The Romans, drawing from Greek and Italic influences, sought empire for reasons that spanned strategy to culture. Commentators such as J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur and Alexis de Tocqueville have remarked on America's distinctive synthesis of African and European lineages, giving rise to an archetype characterized by unceasing progress and achievement.
African American culture has left indelible marks on the United States, influencing everything from language and architecture to religious practices and critical agricultural innovations. The cultural resilience and contributions of African Americans resonate through American music, food, and more, indicating their central role in the nation's development. The American identity, a mosaic of cultural assimilation, is vividly represented by immigrants. Their perseverance in the face of adversity, often working tirelessly for modest pay, reflects an embodiment of the American ethos that can surpass even that of native-born citizens. Their commitment to the country's progress aligns with the Protestant work ethic, considered a foundational American principle. Thus, the essence of America lies in its people, manifesting the idea that the American identity can be adopted and expressed through a commitment to the collective progress of the nation.
The impact of geography on civilization is profound. While the phrase "geography is destiny" may oversimplify the matter, the role of geographical factors in shaping societies is crucial, as explored by Vidal de la Blanche and in German geopolitics, and remains relevant today. Russia's development, influenced by its Turkic and Slavic roots, is a case in point. Its vast landmass is strategic for regional influence but not for naval power, often affecting neighboring areas, an idea echoed in Dugin's vision of an Imperial Russia. America's geography positions it for leadership on both regional and global stages. Its coasts open it to trade with Europe and Asia, and its natural resources and fertile land support growth with minimal reliance on man-made infrastructure. The Mississippi River system enhances domestic trade and unity, reinforcing the strategic advantages of geography described by Mahan. With its potential for prosperity even in isolation, America has a unique imperial capacity, immune to invasion and nimble in global affairs, perhaps promising a longevity of influence beyond that of the British Empire.
Civilizations are elevated to their esteemed positions by those outstanding individuals often referred to as "the unique ones." These are the people who personify the core values of their nation while leveraging the distinct historical and situational advantages available to them, usually catalyzing the advancement and progression of their civilizations. This group of exceptional individuals — the Natural Aristocracy — encompasses not just the conventional leaders and policymakers but also extends to cultural innovators like artists, poets, musicians, entrepreneurs, or even distinguished members of the labor force. The legacy of Greek civilization, for instance, includes the conquests of Alexander the Great across vast territories as well as the intellectual contributions from the likes of poet Homer, mathematician Pythagoras, and philosopher Plato. France's historical narrative is marked by the strategic prowess of Napoleon Bonaparte, while Germany's cultural heritage boasts of creative geniuses such as the composer Mozart, the socio-economic theorist Karl Marx, and the profound philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The presence of a Natural Aristocracy is a global phenomenon, yet the attainment of civilizational prominence is contingent upon effectively mastering their environment.
In America, Abraham Lincoln stands as a paragon of the Natural Aristocracy. Rising from humble beginnings to the presidency, Lincoln faced the formidable challenge of a nation fracturing to protect an outdated social hierarchy. Despite early military setbacks under the shrewd command of Confederate generals, Lincoln's strategic ingenuity and his ability to morally galvanize the populace through the Emancipation Proclamation were pivotal in dismantling the rebellious South and achieving national unity. Without these efforts, the United States' current status as a dominant global force might not have materialized. America's contribution to the Natural Aristocracy is further enriched by literary talents such as Edgar Allan Poe and H. P. Lovecraft; poets like Walt Whitman and Robert Frost; legendary musicians Elvis Presley and Louis Armstrong; and visionary film directors including Orson Welles and George Lucas. The argument stands that America's civilizational identity is propelled by its extensive Natural Aristocracy. This aristocratic inclusivity is a core strength of the American civilization.
Skeptics of Globalism in America must understand that to rejuvenate the nation, a return to core values and traditions is essential, not the hollow promises of liberalism or secular humanism. As the liberal international order declines, it is imperative for them to craft a new social blueprint, drawing lessons from the governance models of Russia, China, and the former Soviet Union. To counter Globalism's threats and the misguided reliance on pure reason that has fueled a resurgence of nationalism, it is crucial for Americans to envision their nation as a Civilization-State. This concept aligns with the status of India, Russia, China, Rome, and the Islamic world, recognizing America's evolution into a "civilization" through its bold influence, fostering of a diverse Natural Aristocracy, and societal enrichment. Embracing this civilizational identity is vital for unity and maintaining a dominant position in the global order, where borders and ambitions clash. Americans must act in their collective self-interest to secure this preeminence and counter forces, including White Supremacists, who threaten to divide with outdated nationalism. Understanding America as a Civilization-State highlights its unique, enduring nature, supported by its people and leaders committed to preserving their Imperial legacy, ensuring that identity and sovereignty flourish within the global landscape and multipolar world, fostering internal harmony and resilience against contemporary challenges.
“For good or ill, America is what it is — a culture in its own right, with many characteristic lines of power and meaning of its own, ranking with Greece and Rome as one of the great distinctive civilizations of history.”
— Max Lerner, America As a Civilization
What America Requires
For America's future, we seek to initiate a rebirth that respects our historical traditions while moving beyond the limits of both capitalism and socialism. We aim to rekindle a sense of organic community where citizens actively engage, the economy is managed responsibly, and rural values are revitalized — all within a framework that acknowledges the essential authority of the State. Our intent is to achieve transformation respectfully and peacefully, reinstating a sense of order and rank that resonates with the wisdom of our forebears. At the heart of this vision lies the rejuvenation of Industrial Unionism. We see it not just as a labor movement but as a return to a natural societal structure in which every worker plays a critical part in the greater economic body. This form of unionism creates a sacred bond between those who work in industry and agriculture, reflecting a syndicalist approach that embraces the rich variety of our nation's heritage.
We call for the establishment of a National Labor and State Assembly, a bicameral entity that combines the venerable insights of worker-elected representatives with the strategic oversight of a managerial body for cooperatives. Their joint mission will be to synchronize the diligent efforts of our workforce with the collective economic aspirations of our nation. Our strategy promotes a syndicalist construct that authentically represents the complex weave of American society, incorporating the various identities within our workforce into the dignified mission of production. This model promotes a form of democracy that is deeply connected to the spirit of American workers, anchored in our traditions and sense of community. In the agricultural sector, we propose a cooperative system that brings together individual farmers, rural laborers, and state-run farms into a community network, directed by collectives that blend local expertise with state-level direction. We aim to develop policies that respect local needs and perspectives while aligning with the nation's broader strategic vision, harmonizing local self-governance with national coherence.
Looking outward, we call for the creation of an expansive North American Civilization-State, aimed at strengthening our economic ties and security arrangements. This ambitious concept respects the unique identities of political entities while fostering an international order that is both diverse and united. We support a federalist system where a strong central authority provides vital functions such as conflict resolution and defense, while regions that are rich in their own ethnic and cultural traditions enjoy self-governance. These regions will choose representatives to a Federal government responsible for establishing foundational laws and overseeing our joint economic endeavors, all guided by timeless values.
Lastly, we affirm the profound principle of self-determination within the storied expanse of the Amerikana "Great Space," promoting the creation of semi-autonomous Republics. These Republics will act as stewards of their fate, operating like Nation-States within the larger Civilization-State, empowering communities to choose leaders who genuinely represent their desires, shape their societal norms, manage their economies, safeguard their populations, and legislate in a way that reflects their unique identities. This framework is crafted to honor the natural evolution of America's diverse cultural and identity groups, nurturing unity while preserving the sanctity of our collective heritage and traditions.
A map of the new America Federation
Americanism has a distinctive role on the world stage, which many liberals misunderstand, it is nonetheless a testament to its our influence and leadership. American’s civilizational identity transcends ethnic homogeneity, rooted instead in a rich mosaic of cultures and peoples. True American exceptionalism is deeply intertwined with a reverence for our guiding principles, its commitment to Christian faith, its Imperial history, and its Aristocratic values. It is this profound understanding of the Empire's core ideas and principles that encapsulates the true American Spirit.
“It is the small town, the small city, that is our heritage. We have made twentieth-century America from it, and some account of these communities as they were… we owe our children and grandchildren.”
— Henry Seidel Canby, The Age of Confidence