| Welcome, student, to the Home of the prestigious Foreign Affairs University! You are currently not a registered Student. Anonymous enrollment IS available. There is no commitment required to receive a Student ID Card. Join our community!|
If you're already a member please log in:
Global Despotism: Francoism in Decay
, 2008 Vox Populi Essay by Mobius 1
Member No.: 1
Joined: 2-February 14
| Global Despotism: Francoism in Decay
Vladimir of the New Pacific Order has recently penned an essay, titled "Despotic Primitivism", with its stated aim the critique of Vox Populi's intellectual foundations. It is with a playful, yet accurate, twist on his words that I write this counter-argument; focusing on Francoism, the Order, International Anarchy, and Vox Populi's nature and mission.
VIDEO: Project for a Global Pacifican Era
Although slightly out of date (the video mentions the MK war), I recommend you watch this video before or after reading the essay:
It was written and edited by myself and voice recorded by King Thirsty. It was inspired by another video "leftist propaganda" on youtube that criticizes United States policy.
The Order and Francoism
Francoism, as we know it, is the creation and ideological baby of the New Pacific Order's Vladimir. It is a pragmatic ideology designed to analyze the world and provide insight into politics and alliance mechanisms. Much of Francoism has to do with the state of nature and the analysis of the self-interest of nations, defined primarily in The Meaning of Freedom as national survival and growth. Voluntary surrender of absolute freedom in exchange for a sovereign authority removes a nation from the undesirable conditions of the state of nature and places him in an environment hopefully free of external conflict. Francoism also argues that an absolute sovereign working on the basis of a democratic autocracy allows nations to fully explore their potential as the sovereign is better able to deal with and remove internal and external conflict. It is, as stated earlier, that membership must be voluntary in nature; otherwise there would be internal strife and the alliance would not be a democratic autocracy. In general, the understanding of these concepts combined with competent officers has allowed NPO to surpass other alliances.
This brings us to some important points: Francoism is in essence supportive of ordered anarchies, or alliances: voluntary conglomerations of nations united under a sovereign. It is also important to note that although Francoism condemns the state of nature as undesirable and inhibitive for a nation's potential, it does not call for an end to international anarchy, the state of nature between alliances and non-aligned nations. This is because the removal of international anarchy in favor of forced order would be completely contrary to voluntary membership, a core principle of Francoism, and the idea that the sovereign acts upon a social contract to protect its member nations. Finally, Francoism limits the definition of self-interest to survival and the achievement of potential.
Therefore, Francoist principles are appealing to many nations, but not all; some nations have differing definitions and realizations of self interests. This is an important area in which Vladimir's The Meaning of Freedom fails to expand upon. In fact, many nations view the state of nature, or an alliance as near as possible to the state of nature, as representative of their self-interest, despite the resulting limitations on national potential.
Hence, it is ultimately in the self-interest of every nation to choose it's own destiny, whether it be the the heights of civilization or the barbarism of absolute freedom... or somewhere in-between. To deny this is to show a regrettable misunderstanding of human nature.
A truly Francoist alliance will never force membership upon other (non-member) nations because this would destroy any semblance of a democratic autocracy. By extension, a Francoist alliance, being condemnatory of the state of nature, would work to help nations struggling in absolute or near-absolute freedom, because Francoism is about allowing nations to achieve their potential and satisfy their self-interests. A Francoist alliance, as a democratic autocracy, must internally allow viewpoints and ideas to be fully expressed (so long as strife is not created), as this leads to improvement and coming closer to realizing freedom of potential, and repression leads to hidden internal conflict. And a Francoist alliance would never take part in oppressing non-member nations as the principles of Francoism denounce such actions as barbarity.
With this context in mind, is NPO truly a Francoist alliance? Or is it a Global Despot at the hands of its ultimate beneficiaries, its officers?
War is Peace
Unfortunately, Francoism is overly optimistic because it operates under theoretical conditions that do not account for human nature. Central to this is the idealistic concept of the Democratic Autocrat. Let us analyze the situation involving Francoist principles and see how this applies.
Although it is theoretically possible that there be a true democratic autocracy with a completely benign emperor in power, in reality this is often defeated by human nature. A leader may not come to power desiring to be the channel of the voice of the membership, but rather through ruthlessness to advance his own special interests. In many major organizations, the person who rises to leadership is typically the most ruthless and skilled member in the art of populism and obtaining trust. The larger and more corrupt the organization, the more certain this result is. This is as true for NPO as most organizations of its caliber and purpose.
Once empowered, these individuals may begin to implement what on the surface appear to be Francoist policies designed to reduce internal strife, but are actually designed to benefit themselves and their special interests. Repressive policies and encouragement of groupthink will promote stagnation and merely move and aggravate internal conflict into other, more hidden venues. This hidden conflict continues to remain a problem, and repressive measures can result in the decreased ability for member-nations to pursue their potential.
Because leaders in organizations of this type (including NPO) tend to be ambitious, they typically do not wish to rest upon their laurels and remain content with applying Francoism internally; but instead seek conquest. Conquest has a dual purpose: the membership is distracted from internal differences that may prove damaging to the sovereign by the appearance of a foreign enemy and a new source of contrived conflict. Thus, the dual goals of unification while increasing and exercising power are satisfied.
These actions must always be cleverly justified as being within the [defensive, economic, etc] self interests of the Order to displace the fact that the war was actually in the interests of the sovereign and his special interests. This is where the concept of the casus belli and other justifications become so important; the Imperial Officers must not allow doubt to be cast upon the reasons for war. In reality, outsider nations are destroyed and oppressed solely for the interests of the aggressive sovereign, who is at odds with the interests of the membership.
In this manner a chain of faux enemies and wars are utilized to distract the alliance from inevitable internal conflict, both between the sovereign and membership and between the members themselves (potentially resulting in revolt or exodus). Even better, these wars produce crippled nations with a grudge that do actually seek malice to the alliance, keeping the member nations at all times in terror (or alternatively, in arrogance and hatred) and in lock step.
The alliance must have external enemies to counter internal conflict, and satisfy the Imperial Officers ambitions.
As ruthless individuals these alliance leaders are not content with mere alliance governance or even the occaisional conquests; instead, should they be competent enough, they will seek regional and ultimately global domination, the dream of all the most ambitious and capable of nations.
Fundamentally, they are at war with the international anarchy, and by extension, the self interests of all nations that define their self interests as different than those stated by the tenets of Francoism (survival). Self determination is arguably within the interests of all nations, and those that do not conform are inherently under siege by the so-called Francoists (or Neo-Francoists). It is hardly a conspiracy; quite the opposite, it is a high profile project I call the project for a Global Pacifican Era.
Constant attention is given to foreign affairs and diplomacy, as the image of invincibility and Francoism must at all times be preserved, and attempts to breach this public image be dealt with in the harshest methods possible. With a combination of diplomatic skill, projected image of flawlessness and invincibility, and ruthlessness, the NPO destroys enemies and garners allies.
Eventually, a situation arises where all credible threats and points of opposition are eliminated, thus leaving a sole superpower at the head of a coalition of the major alliances. The focus is now to control these alliances and especially their sovereigns, and continue to destroy undesirable alliances. In addition to the original two reasons for these wars (internal conflict resolution and power consolidation), two new goals are created: terrorizing of foreign entities into submission, and distraction of allies by faux war and threats.
Eventually, these independent factions are eliminated or consolidated as the superpower creates a stable, massive empire built upon fear and proxy governance. This not only has the effect of further consolidating power within the hands of the sovereign, but it additionally is, on the surface, perfectly aligned with francoist methodology, because the alliance itself remains a democratic autocracy with voluntary membership (or, rather, pretends to be).
In this manner an age of global despotism arises as enemies are created and "discovered," allowing a perpetual state of war and constant threats from "reactionaries" keeping the membership on their toes. Any alliance that shows an independent streak is isolated and then targeted as the enemy, meaning that alliances become proxy extensions of the superpower and will often do battle in its stead. International anarchy continues to exist in illusion, but in reality it is replaced with global order.
Although this may change due to changes within the superpower "Francoist" alliance, it will almost certainly never change from without. This is the fundamental truth of international relations today.
There comes a time when nations that have self interests different from that expressed by Francoism will be pushed too far, and will seek to overthrow the power hegemony. Some argue that this is inevitable, as nations of all backgrounds unite as their self-interests increasingly become one and the same: the destruction of the power hegemony and restoration of international anarchy.
Combined with a major war of global proportions, such a revolution becomes more likely as the chance of toppling the power hegemony increases. These revolutionaries are reinforced by regular forces under attack by the global despots and their proxies. The Revolution will use any and all tactics to achieve it's goals. The global despots will act in a reactionary manner, which will further fuel the fires of revolution as more nations join the struggle. Thus a cause is born forged in the fires of war from the self interests of all nations to decide their own fates. This revolution can be seen as a monster of the creation of the despots themselves, but is a good and necessary thing, a potential rebirth of Francoism in the forge of battle.
Whether the revolution (Vox Populi?) will succeed is questionable, but it is very much a last throw of the dice for independent forces who wish to remain separate from the global despotism.
But are these nations revolutionaries or reactionaries?
It will be of the opinion of the global despots that these nations are actually reactionaries trying to restore a past that is long gone. The goals of the popular uprising will be condemned as idealistic and anachronistic, and slandered to create a negative image that is meant to make the revolutionaries appear worse than they themselves are.
Claims of reactionary intent are categorically false. The Revolution is by definition not reactionary, because it seeks to overthrow the global despotism and the destruction of the power focus that NPO has become. It seeks this on behalf on the self interests of all nations; that is, the self interest of self determination (and in the ooc sense, ability to have fun with multiple playing styles), thus the term Vox Populi, or "voice of the people," is used in this revolution.
Vox Populi does not advocate or demand anarchy within alliances despite confusion regarding it's endorsement of International Anarchy. Vox Populi is not an anti-francoist organization; one will find many prominent Francoists within the cause. Vox Populi has members of many backgrounds because the revolution is united behind the goal of preserving and reestablishing international anarchy and damaging the power hegemony, rather than short term ill-fated power schemes, vengeance games and political maneuvers.
The revolution is the ultimate expression of liberty as defined by the principle of self determination. Whether Vox Populi proves to be this revolution, or merely a foreshadow or blueprint for it, remains to be seen.
Will the NPO and establishment complete its pursuit of global despotism, will they be overthrown in this war, or will there be a later inevitable revolution, merely forestalled? Only time can tell, although every defeat of independent forces brings NPO closer to their goals. But one thing is certain, while the NPO acts against the self interests of nations not aligned to their philosophy, revolution will continue to thrive.
Skin created by Pryme. Find more great skins at the IF Skin Zone.