This is Chapter 18 of How to Dismantle an Empire. It ends Section FIVE: Lands of Milk and Money, which is on system change. This chapter imagines a global network of small scale sovereignty, and what would be possible. It compares Afghanistan to Switzerland, the Maoists of India to the Zapatistas of Chiapas, and an African girl to a British pound.
I remeber the days when every country was pushed to join the World Trade Organisation what was rever a real international organisation but an arbitration mechanism in the fashion of anglosaxon maritime law im which the judges can be bribed. Another empty shield is the OECD. They actually worked to abolish international law which is now dead, as was intended. I think BRICs is a desperate move to rebirth a minimal standard of international law. But to have international law we must have nations in the first place, which is contrary to globalism and free capital movements for a world market, as Marx predicted before the end of capitalism by the take over of the working class. Globalism has lost momentum now as chaos has overcome over reliable rules. I think a global deal for minimal standards is in the oven but the west is reluctant to accept the end of its hegemony.
When I started paying attention to geopolitics, it was all about the WTO. I was part of a coalition of trade NGO's--since I was the only one not representing an organization or trade union, I took the notes. I saw 9/11 at that time as an attack on the Trade Center, in retaliation for trade policies. I wrote articles on free trade agreements and was likely one of the few people to have ever read them in their entirety.
When I edited this chapter to read, I noticed that I hadn't even included the WEF in that list of alphabet soup. They weren't even on my radar back then. Now they're the ringleader of the circus and the WTO is barely a blip player.
Do we need nations to have international law? That's really the question this chapter addresses. Nations are an arbitrary size that varies from 1B+ to a few 100,000. And their clout isn't proportional to their size, as demonstrated by Southeast Asia. I was shocked to discover how small 'Europe' is in landmass and how populous Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia were.
Any agreement between entities needs to start with an equality of scale. If we control our own economies at a local level, we can stop funding wars--or rather, paying the bankers for the money they created to instigate wars. In my own commonwealth/ hamlet, I'd propose that we don't allow anyone who's made money from the military or a euphemistically named 'defense' industry to transfer dollars into carets. That would require them to pay twice the amount for housing than if they were doing work for the community. By ending the incentives for war and enabling an alternative to serving the oligarchs, we can decide the rules by which we relate to commonwealths halfway around the world.
I have incorporated your changes into my copy. Not so many this time, but I do have one question. You took out this sentence:
"Protests also blocked China’s effort to replace the school curriculum with propaganda that glorified the Chinese government and made no mention of unfavorable events like Tiananmen Square."
There was a footnote (number 5) at the end of that sentence. I took out the sentence, but left in the footnote. Was that the right thing to do?
I was a law student in the 90s. I was very idealistic about international organisations..I really thought it was the future..I got to work for a couple of them.. Now I think very differently.
"The revolution... [at least steps 1-3] ...will not be televised."
1 wake up
2 wise up
3 grow up
4 show up
Let's say this 4-step process represents the needed change humanity needs to be reborn and become civilized. I'd say we are typically stuck on step one.
To illustrate, I have a disgusting metaphor I use in order to attempt to point out that only root causes really matter. Instead of deck chair rearrangement, the Titanic crew should steer clear of icy waters entirely.
Humanity is trying to throw a big party for itself, but there are turds in the punch bowl. Blue team cheers when removing red turds. Red team cheers when removing blue turds. Health nut team cheers because there is less sugar in this batch. Polity hosts cheer because they become [owned/blackmailed] multimillionaires for continuing to add turds. Investors/speculators cheer because they issue currency funding mortuaries and expensive hospitals.
The vast majority don't cheer, they sigh. They sigh and imply that this is just the way things are, this is as good as it gets, so just try to have fun dreams and forget about being responsible sovereign citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven.
When commenting on someone's post, Mark, reference what they wrote to which you're responding. Otherwise it seems like you're using the space they created as your own soapbox.
In my first two sections, I showed how money was created to force us into the conquest and enslavement of other people. That's the root cause of the predicament we're in. I don't know if the Titanic metaphor applies because the 'iceberg' is our dependence on the labor of others to supply our needs, so we can use our labor to make the rich richer.
I don't know that I'd describe that as humanity throwing a big party for itself. The lives of everyone I know are damn stressful. This chapter shows that doesn't need to be just the way things are. Do you agree with what I've written or are you saying things will stay the same because other people aren't as 'awake' as you?
To comment or not to comment, that is the question...
Lief to long for belief, I look to the possibility of beauty, goodness, and truth. My mind is in awe, wondering, questioning, exploring.
What have I?
Mostly great mysteries.
Unknowns.
No following. No certainties.
My typical guesswork:
Example research questions:
Is Aldous Huxley a compassionate individual or is he some villainous agent provocateur inducing others to discredit the cause of individualism? Is he a good guy or a bad guy or does he simply have certain social theories? Why did one of his brothets commit suicide? What are the ideologies, traditions, and legacies of the Huxley clan? Is Aldous more a clever sophist pushing a social engineering agenda or a compassionate philosopher empathizing with humanity's lot?
Now for a look at a different take on titanic world crises (dangers + opportunuties).
I find a woman named Tereza writing (books!) about her take on the situations and trends we find ourselves in.
Re some of chapter 18's openning lines, for example...
I wonder, what are the givens, the underlying assumptions?
Tereza says
"This chapter imagines a global network..."
Should I consider this network as a deep state system of international influencers? Should I consider oligarchy? Or shall I consider the American system, perhaps as a constitutional republic?
Or, also Ch 18...
"We might imagine China’s 1.35 billion population as three or four trading blocs, each with a dozen federations made up of a dozen EcoStates. Thinking of China in this way raises questions."
What assumptions?
What questions?
Questions? Is political control assumed to be at best top-down or bottom-up? Should nations have governance that is more like an empire or more like a republic? Is there a difference? Is one more desirable than another?
Why comment?
I am not your disciple.
And also,
I am not your enemy.
Just an onlooker.
I am in effect
Alle Menschen.
Yes, I am humanity. Imagine me for a moment as any randomly selected typical individual human being, in China, US, India, wherever.
For me the Internet is an experiment, not for "friending," but rather in reading/listening, writing/reasoning, and pondering.
My book is about small scale sovereignty. In this chapter, I imagine a global network of small scale sovereignty--not a hierarchy. I don't know if you read the chapter or previous ones when you ask if it's a deep state of int'l influencers, an oligarchy or an American system--which I debunk in Section two. You ask if it's an empire or a republic but you'd only have to read my title to eliminate the first, right? Republic isn't a word I prefer because it carries so much baggage. So I've created unique terms like hamlet and commonwealth so that they can't be usurped to mean an empire-in-disguise--as you're trying to do.
18: World Without Ends
https://open.substack.com/pub/thirdparadigm/p/18-world-without-ends
TEREZA CORAGGIO 2025.08.15 Friday
https://substack.com/@thirdparadigm
I remeber the days when every country was pushed to join the World Trade Organisation what was rever a real international organisation but an arbitration mechanism in the fashion of anglosaxon maritime law im which the judges can be bribed. Another empty shield is the OECD. They actually worked to abolish international law which is now dead, as was intended. I think BRICs is a desperate move to rebirth a minimal standard of international law. But to have international law we must have nations in the first place, which is contrary to globalism and free capital movements for a world market, as Marx predicted before the end of capitalism by the take over of the working class. Globalism has lost momentum now as chaos has overcome over reliable rules. I think a global deal for minimal standards is in the oven but the west is reluctant to accept the end of its hegemony.
When I started paying attention to geopolitics, it was all about the WTO. I was part of a coalition of trade NGO's--since I was the only one not representing an organization or trade union, I took the notes. I saw 9/11 at that time as an attack on the Trade Center, in retaliation for trade policies. I wrote articles on free trade agreements and was likely one of the few people to have ever read them in their entirety.
When I edited this chapter to read, I noticed that I hadn't even included the WEF in that list of alphabet soup. They weren't even on my radar back then. Now they're the ringleader of the circus and the WTO is barely a blip player.
Do we need nations to have international law? That's really the question this chapter addresses. Nations are an arbitrary size that varies from 1B+ to a few 100,000. And their clout isn't proportional to their size, as demonstrated by Southeast Asia. I was shocked to discover how small 'Europe' is in landmass and how populous Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia were.
Any agreement between entities needs to start with an equality of scale. If we control our own economies at a local level, we can stop funding wars--or rather, paying the bankers for the money they created to instigate wars. In my own commonwealth/ hamlet, I'd propose that we don't allow anyone who's made money from the military or a euphemistically named 'defense' industry to transfer dollars into carets. That would require them to pay twice the amount for housing than if they were doing work for the community. By ending the incentives for war and enabling an alternative to serving the oligarchs, we can decide the rules by which we relate to commonwealths halfway around the world.
I have incorporated your changes into my copy. Not so many this time, but I do have one question. You took out this sentence:
"Protests also blocked China’s effort to replace the school curriculum with propaganda that glorified the Chinese government and made no mention of unfavorable events like Tiananmen Square."
There was a footnote (number 5) at the end of that sentence. I took out the sentence, but left in the footnote. Was that the right thing to do?
I was a law student in the 90s. I was very idealistic about international organisations..I really thought it was the future..I got to work for a couple of them.. Now I think very differently.
.
Hey Tereza
"The revolution... [at least steps 1-3] ...will not be televised."
1 wake up
2 wise up
3 grow up
4 show up
Let's say this 4-step process represents the needed change humanity needs to be reborn and become civilized. I'd say we are typically stuck on step one.
To illustrate, I have a disgusting metaphor I use in order to attempt to point out that only root causes really matter. Instead of deck chair rearrangement, the Titanic crew should steer clear of icy waters entirely.
Humanity is trying to throw a big party for itself, but there are turds in the punch bowl. Blue team cheers when removing red turds. Red team cheers when removing blue turds. Health nut team cheers because there is less sugar in this batch. Polity hosts cheer because they become [owned/blackmailed] multimillionaires for continuing to add turds. Investors/speculators cheer because they issue currency funding mortuaries and expensive hospitals.
The vast majority don't cheer, they sigh. They sigh and imply that this is just the way things are, this is as good as it gets, so just try to have fun dreams and forget about being responsible sovereign citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven.
(See step 1.)
mark spark
[ :-)
.
When commenting on someone's post, Mark, reference what they wrote to which you're responding. Otherwise it seems like you're using the space they created as your own soapbox.
In my first two sections, I showed how money was created to force us into the conquest and enslavement of other people. That's the root cause of the predicament we're in. I don't know if the Titanic metaphor applies because the 'iceberg' is our dependence on the labor of others to supply our needs, so we can use our labor to make the rich richer.
I don't know that I'd describe that as humanity throwing a big party for itself. The lives of everyone I know are damn stressful. This chapter shows that doesn't need to be just the way things are. Do you agree with what I've written or are you saying things will stay the same because other people aren't as 'awake' as you?
Neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Considering.
.
To comment or not to comment, that is the question...
Lief to long for belief, I look to the possibility of beauty, goodness, and truth. My mind is in awe, wondering, questioning, exploring.
What have I?
Mostly great mysteries.
Unknowns.
No following. No certainties.
My typical guesswork:
Example research questions:
Is Aldous Huxley a compassionate individual or is he some villainous agent provocateur inducing others to discredit the cause of individualism? Is he a good guy or a bad guy or does he simply have certain social theories? Why did one of his brothets commit suicide? What are the ideologies, traditions, and legacies of the Huxley clan? Is Aldous more a clever sophist pushing a social engineering agenda or a compassionate philosopher empathizing with humanity's lot?
https://youtu.be/alasBxZsb40?si=LyQHM-bSZ66D-z0w
...
Enter Tereza,
Now for a look at a different take on titanic world crises (dangers + opportunuties).
I find a woman named Tereza writing (books!) about her take on the situations and trends we find ourselves in.
Re some of chapter 18's openning lines, for example...
I wonder, what are the givens, the underlying assumptions?
Tereza says
"This chapter imagines a global network..."
Should I consider this network as a deep state system of international influencers? Should I consider oligarchy? Or shall I consider the American system, perhaps as a constitutional republic?
Or, also Ch 18...
"We might imagine China’s 1.35 billion population as three or four trading blocs, each with a dozen federations made up of a dozen EcoStates. Thinking of China in this way raises questions."
What assumptions?
What questions?
Questions? Is political control assumed to be at best top-down or bottom-up? Should nations have governance that is more like an empire or more like a republic? Is there a difference? Is one more desirable than another?
Why comment?
I am not your disciple.
And also,
I am not your enemy.
Just an onlooker.
I am in effect
Alle Menschen.
Yes, I am humanity. Imagine me for a moment as any randomly selected typical individual human being, in China, US, India, wherever.
For me the Internet is an experiment, not for "friending," but rather in reading/listening, writing/reasoning, and pondering.
Mostly pondering.
Happy pondering,
mark spark
8-18-25 MON
.
My book is about small scale sovereignty. In this chapter, I imagine a global network of small scale sovereignty--not a hierarchy. I don't know if you read the chapter or previous ones when you ask if it's a deep state of int'l influencers, an oligarchy or an American system--which I debunk in Section two. You ask if it's an empire or a republic but you'd only have to read my title to eliminate the first, right? Republic isn't a word I prefer because it carries so much baggage. So I've created unique terms like hamlet and commonwealth so that they can't be usurped to mean an empire-in-disguise--as you're trying to do.