DeLaRea.net – блог на Антони Де ла Реа – по света и у нас

  Anyone met in the street would confidently assure you that we live at times of globalism. And maybe that is indeed the fact. The question is – how long would it last? Is it possible that this universal process comes to an abrupt end?

   Above all, we are all clear with the fact that globalism is a political and economical process simultaneously.  Nations of better developed economies have distorted their industrial priority into political leadership of worldwide significance.
  In XIX century Victorian England is “the factory of the world”, and therefore easily turns into a world empire, where the sun never sets. It produces everything and sells it to everyone. The accumulated capital is invested in the Navy, and British rules are imposed on the whole world.

   A century after USA acts alike. Its well functioning economy gains advantage in political aspect, the effectively pursued external policy reflects in a subsequent economical shove. And after the end of Cold War the Americans would bear the fruit of their victory. That stands for new compulsory principles – those of “global economy”, levied over lower developed economies.

   That convention supposes free movement of people, goods and capital. The presumption is that those rules would contribute towards a raise in the powerful American economy – so that Americans can operate freely with their merchandise and capital as well as supply cheap working force. All that is a fact at the start of XXI century, but….

   …”but” is relevant to the two important requisites that predetermine stability of the system. One is having a single- pole of the world (not two or three), the other is that “the pole”, has to be the worlds greatest producer, exporter, capitalist, able to finance everything, everywhere, always. The point where the world’s political leader falls behind on any of the above economic criteria is where globalism looses its foundation. It is illogical for a global power to shield an economy too open, once it starts undermining its position, instead of consolidating it.

   What is the current situation?

   Political and military leader of the World is the USA. Although debated, their priority is so far unattainable. Nevertheless in economical aspect that is no longer the fact. USA is not and will never be the factory of the world. That role is undertaken by poor societies with numerous population, guaranteeing available cheap working force and the resulting lower production costs. Therefore that place is taken by India, China, the countries between them Indo-China. Thanks to the imposed on behalf of Americans global economical policy, those countries sell their cheap commodities everywhere almost unimpeded. In fact those poor societies have earned the most out of globalization.

   As to widely proclaimed free movement of people, there is the most signifying controversy between said and done. As long as that stands for rich entrepreneurs traveling freely, doing business, with no obstacles on behalf of local governments – there is no problem. Neither when that means rich tourists visiting exotic resorts on the Southern seas.

   But when it comes up to the poor, crossing countries in order t o seek a better remunerated employment – that turns into a problem. Europe is swelling with immigrants- Indian, African, Muslim; USA – with Latinos and Asian. Societies of the rich North are no longer indifferent towards that incessant human flow and put pressure over their politics in order to build solid boundaries between the First and the Third World. That will inevitably happen. And then open movement of people will simply turn into a history fact.

   Talking about free movement of capital, the picture is not much different. In our eyes America appears to be the richest country but that is also past. Everyone wishes to sell his goods on the American market and it is all good to the consumers there, but that leads to a budget deficiency. USA buys more from the rest of the world than it could possibly sell. That irrelevance could only be compensated by loans from abroad. The result is selling shares, bought mainly by China. The fact that one of them is a Capitalist and the other –a Communist country, stands out for different allocation of money in the two societies. Distribution of welfare, if not more reasonable, is at least more extensive in America, while in China it is vice versa. Individuals are poor, but the country is rich.

   Moreover both American and European well developed industries experience constant need of energy resources. To keep up the speed they fall hostages to countries, producing and exporting gas, petrol, etc. The very exporters also undergo changes. Some of them – Bolivia and Russia – have implicitly or evidently laid a hand over gas trade and extraction. The rest have simply considerably raised prices of “black gold” instead.

   From everything said so far, it is evident that the USA is no longer economical leader of global scale. And respectively does not have particular benefit in complying military and political measures to impose a world order, that turns out to be in favor of competitive economies, like China. It is not working in their interest anymore and starts to be in their way. An objective danger of the western world flooded with foreign “people, goods and capital” exists.

   There are two possible outcomes.

   One is China gradually transforming its economical power into military and political predominance and becoming sovereign master of the world. That will recover single-polarity and globalization will proceed in full power, with a touch of sweet and sour taste, though.

   Second is America itself, limiting the process of globalization. The developed western societies would rather impede access of cheap eastern products on its markets and hinder admittance of unwelcome immigrants from the poor South. A new form of regional protectionalism will emerge. International trade will not stop, but it will not be as free.    There is a third option – a combination of the two.

  When could that happen?

  Next year.
  Antony De La Rea ;  translated by: Dobromira Bozukova

   “ …..the wheel of history is turning and will keep on turning until complete victory of Communism“

  The well-known saying of the Bulgarian „first teacher and leader“ Georgi Dimitrov is taken out of its context for the occasion. However, I am starting with it, for it captures summarized attitude of men towards the history of mankind. That could be generalized in two approaches.

  First one: Judaic – Christian: oversees evolution of humanity as a straight line. There are periods of progress and retrogression, but the direction always stays the same: straight forward and up. That philosophy is officially adopted by the Western World. Mankind evolves slowly and gradually, walking from primitive to modern days. Depending on who possesses the main means of production, history is divided into different stages, that we, at school referred to as „order“ – „Slavery“, „Pheudal“, „Capitalism“ etc, up to modern days.

  But a moment occurred, when history had to come to its end. According to Marxists – with Victory of Communism. Western analysists did not believe in it, but still presumed there is an ending. Therefore to them the end of Cold War marked the end of history.

  The other approach: the Eastern, Indian – Chinese, regards life as a geometry figure – namely a circle. According to its philosophy mankind does not ever evolve, it goes round in circles, repetitively in different periods of time. That is the way night is overtaken by day, winter by summer, and why not history in general?

  Probably the truth is somewhere in the middle. Should we proceed in the logic of geometrical figures next comes the spiral.

  It is simultaneously a straight line and a circle, according to the point of view.

  Is it possible that mankind evolves in a spiral, like a spring?  That would stand for habitual repeating of events at diverse periods, though at a completely different technical level. In that logic of thinking, we have to revise history, looking for facts, identical to contemporary events. If theory of “history spiral“ is correct, somewhere right under us, one stage down, there has to have something similar. And if we understand „where we are now“, we can predict what future would bring us.I assume we live in Contemporary Antiquity. 

  Many of the things we are used to in our routine have always been there and then. Cement and Ice-cream, Sport and Spectacles, Marathon and Olympiads, blocks of flats and roads, water mains and central heating, public baths and toilets, cosmetics and linen clothing.

  Ancient world has also been Global on its own, one „global village“, but Roman. Same country, same laws, same moral, same language. And one Capitola hill, where global decisions had been taken.

  To proceed in the logic of parallels, we have to mention ancient Persia. With its fiery religious rituals it resembles Middle Ages catholic Spain where „auto da fé“ is regarded as purifying through fire in the name of God.

  One of the provinces (of Persia or Spain), had been incredibly developed economically. People in that sea region had been excellent merchants and sailors, art and culture connoisseurs. They do succeed in building enormous ships, and guided by merchant and discovery motives go on faraway voyages. Even establish own colonies in the lands beyond sea.

  That province is called Finicky or Netherlands, and their colonies – Cartagena and New York.

Gradually new cities become more powerful than the decaying Metropolis. But then, again, are conquered by the new rulers of the world, Romans or British.

True, classical antiquity is related to Rome.

  It is namely Rome that globalizes the world and transforms it into a „Pax Romana“. Romans have not been as cultured as Greeks, but are more efficient at times of war. Their society is better organized, therefore their success. Similar is the ratio between the culture of Mays and the empire of Atzteks, as well as that of England and France.

  Roman upheaval commences with the defeat of Finks colony Cartagena, same as British victory over The Netherlands after defeating Spanish “Great Armada“

  Rome vanquishes Greece. Great Britain defeats Napoleon.

  Caesuras conquers ancient Egypt; Great Britain places India as a pearl in its crown.

A new world empire emerges, found on the basis of solid laws, powerful army, and numerous marine. Sun never sets, roads are built over the world. The world becomes one and unified, though with accent, everyone speaks English and Latin. Nothing left to conquer, seemingly history is about to stop.

  Gradually the capital Rome or London starts to decay, unlike one of its promising colonies.

  Visanthion becomes Constantinopolois and transforms into the new capital of the world. Thus, in a natural, peaceful manner the baton of the new world championship is passed on to America. The promising British colony is independent, yet keeping the language and culture.

  In any way global world, at ancient and modern times is single-poled.

  That is where we are at present.

  At the end of Antiquity and the start of the new Middle ages.

   How does Antiquity wind up?

  With the Great Migration of Peoples.

  Millions of fugitive immigrants are set to flee by overnatality, lack of food and prospective. Discontent with their miserable lifestyle, they run to the First World and destroy it through their ignorance. Lack of knowledge empowers them; body hygiene is postponed for centuries after.

  The Empire makes an effort to defend itself by building a gigantic wall along its boundaries. Roman border bank can still be seen and soon we are about to witness the boundary wall between USA and Mexico. As a result of the uncontrollable pressure on behalf of barbarians, the World alters immensely. The Empire cannot protect its boundaries anymore and is inhabited by new nations. Old inhabitants are killed, set to flee, assimilated. The only reminiscences of their existence remain the names of the territories they inhabited.

  Gallia, Iberia, Illyria, Tracie, Mizia, Dacia, Macedonia, Vitinia, Cappadocia, Lidia, Midis, Scotia, Pannonia.

  Presently they are just geographical names, not states. The countries, having kept their names have lost everything else. Greece and Egypt, Italy and Belgium, have nothing in common with the ancestors, who hade lived on those territories at ancient times.

  The very Empire undergoes a serious transformation. Due to not being capable of defending its global interests it closes down in itself. Having lost its leading role in the world, it transforms into an average Middle Ages country, powerful enough to survive, though. The culture and language are altered. In Vizantia Latin is replaced by the prevailing native language – Greek. USA would face the same problem if Spanish speakers turn into majority. 

What is the difference between Antiquity and Middle ages?

   Same as to compare day and night.

   One is light the other – dark.

  While language is unique in antiquity, and the gods are many, in middle ages it is vice versa – one monotheistic religion, ruling over multilanguage nations.

  Religion starts to threaten freedom of speech and thought. Humanism and pleasure of life, so typical to the previous period are forgotten until Renaissance.

  Just like now, in antiquity there has been a cult to beauty, including that of human body.

  At middle ages there is a cult to the icons.

  At ancient times man has been the measure for everything, at middle ages it is God. Anyone who does not believe, or does not worship the same way, is else-thinking and an eretician. He would perish on the stake.

  Pope Bogomil, Jan Hus or Giordano Bruno are the eminent names we know, but how many are those we are not aware of having existed? Epicureism is regarded as home alcoholism, Seneca as a cynic, maybe because of being too rude.

  Ancient building of aqueducts is replaced by building temples for praying. Today water mains will follow the fate of aqueducts, and Wembley stadium – that of the Roman Coliseum.

  If that theory of the spiral of history proves to be true, that means mankind living two alternate époques.

  „Humanism“ – man is the center of all. Knowledge is a cult, and there is a leap in science and discovery.

  Theology is the other one – everything circles round religion. Old libraries are burnt down, knowledge is forgotten.

  Literacy has gone down to just two percent. Medicine, engineering, astronomy, mathematics fall into decay. Population moves to mountains from the fields, fortresses take the place of sea villas.

If that is all true, what to hope of?

  Two things:

  One is the coming of a new Renaissance.

  Second – that this is all theory – it might not be true.

  Who knows?

Antony De La Rea

translated by Dobromira Bozukova