The law of the greatest
by Adriano Autino
The new millennium starts up with some good cultural omen and a lot of war flashes. Like a big and complex machine, corroded by time and bad weather, our civilization is going to pass through the difficulty of the changing millennium, which is called economical globalization and, perhaps, open of space frontier.
Let's look at the facts. 1) Russia bombards Cecenia and reduces Grozny to a ghost town, exterminating old people, women and children. 2) USA and UE oppose them-selves nominally, in the name of human rights. 3) Eltsin threatens, showing Russian nuclear power, still dangerous. 4) Clinton answers: "be careful, we're always the strongest." 5) Thanks to the war effort, Eltsin wins elections.
Nothing of new. Today is like the last century, or last millennium, war and economy embrace them-selves in thousands of dangerous ways. Populations of superpowers, and ex-superpowers, show through elections and ratings that they share and support in an intolerably elevated way the culture of war and overwhelming. Only the destroyer power of weapons used by this anthropoid ape to afraid or destroy enemies changes, in different periods. Only conditions which I talked about at the beginning are really changed, and an original touch of rational absurdity that history seems enjoy to put into each war. In this situation Russia, near to economical bankruptcy, is kept alive by billions of west dollars: then, is clear that these money is used, not only to transform ex-bureaucrats and new-mafia in respectable business men, but also to support wars in the former Soviet empire. So the west could be obliged to choose between two dangers, equally insidious. Russian bankrupt would have, as a result, the creation of civil war hotbed in the whole East and the overcome of a wild period, with the developing of feuds, dominions and despots like Milosevich or Zirinovski. Opening new markets? Yes: new markets of weapons, drug, prostitution, luxury articles for every kind of mafia boss. The other way is threatening at the same. Nothing warrants that the ex-Soviet military superpower, also if kept alive by west money, doesn't revolt it-self against the same West, as Eltsin was threatening to do in the last days of 1999, dusting again hegemonic dreams of his predecessors.
But could the West really expect something different? The saint alliance Clinton-Blair had just finished to show, in Kosovo, that contradictions are solved through the bombs. How could we astonish our-selves if Eltsin applies the same doctrine in (the one he thinks it is) his home? The White Crow could even show him-self resentful, to tell Clinton he thought to have been a good pupil, than not worthy of Clinton's punishment. We have to choose one of these two ways. Or Russia is considered a new ally, and than we must to consider its military actions as "police operations" against terrorism (Libia or Irak like), or "humanitarian interventions" to save submitted populations, according to the last kosovarian fashion. Or Russia is still considered an enemy, than its military operation are to consider like dangerous acts for West.
No, the West, seen the policy shown by the so-called "Ulivo mondiale" (that has recently met in Firenze to speak about planetary develop), it couldn't expect anything else. In facts all West policy cannot (and we don't know if it would) elevate it-self over the old law of the strongest, which had been governing animals relationship in this planet for millions of years. Who wants assert the right of the strongest can't, in facts, be shocked when other people do the same thing. After so many discussions about the equality in opportunities, democracy, liberty that warrant everybody the same primary rights, how could one avoid other people the right to apply their own violent justice? No, another time we are in front of policy with double game and double moral, like those-ones, so much damned, that were in force during the real socialism. I.e., who writes rules pretends that everybody observe it, considering him-self with the right not to do the same: the same old soup, with the same rotten flavour, either brought by collectivist regimes, or by the so-called west democracy.
But Eltsin's behaviour gives new evidence to other theorems, which must be evident for everybody. Continuing to "help" mafia, gangster, corrupt, and anti-democratic powers -- instead of helping good people - we're always going to have kicks and bites in exchange. This has been analyzed by more parts: international help for so-called developing countries are given, through credit and financial world mechanisms, people considered as "solvenceble" and worthy of faith. 10% of borrows is not recovered either! Helps contribute, in 90% of situations, to the further enrichment of "country gentlemen". They don't conduce to any economic development, and probably they finance dirty and illegal traffics. In the best case governmental committees of such countries are more or less obliged to require the intervention of west advisors, which profit from great contributions to put into practice wonderful planes of development. Such plans are going to remain on the paper, with full satisfaction of all the involved actors. The ones always going hungry, are quite the ones that, if they have a modest borrow, could create new enterprises an make business. It was demonstrated that a lot of little borrows given in this way - to people judged unreliable by traditional bankers -- created new economy where before there was only hunger and underdevelopment. Allowing the personal access to the credit they could create new independent economy, in a free market point of view. This is one of the ways in which the strongest could spend well his money, being worthy of the name "greatest"! While the harmful mix of welfarism, charity, warrant and military management of conflicts, could only endure the dependence, the subjection and the underdevelopment, in few words an oligarchic power by few market owners (then, no free market at all).
I can't understand why, still today, and it is so shameful (either for believers or for not-believers) while we're coming in the third millennium of Christian age, we demonstrate our own authority making people suffering instead of help them to develop their own economy. Does maybe the capitalistic doctrine ideologically prescribe the wild competition, the destruction of the weakest, and the poverty as an extreme, wretched alternative to the death for the losers? Perhaps, once, in the collectivist propaganda, one could find such fundamentalist hyperbole. But observing today, in a detached and mature point of view, the present social processes, we can say that an honest competition doesn't exclude that people who is already stronger help to develop other's economy! And, if we want to go out of the principals to go in the tangible area, has been largely demonstrated that the micro-credit recovers 98% of borrows, any traditional bankers had never done anything so in history! I think that a serious micro-credit programme in poor countries, supported by a micro-investment programme in rich countries, united to a general plan of technological development targeted to open the space frontier (allowing the global economy to grow up again) could wipe away the hunger, the underdevelopment and the war groups in few years. Let's give credit and space (and also the Space) to the micro-enterprises, either in the developed West or in less developed countries. Let's do everywhere true reforms to support individual growth and little company groups, let's look high, after so much being agitated at right and left. We'll have then, at the beginning of the new millennium, a true planetary Renaissance, of unimaginable range!
This is the best wish, and the political keyword, that I propose to all co-planetaries on January, 1st 2000: aim high! Try! All we have to loose is only the law of the strongest and, may be, to win a new law: the law of the greater, of heart and aims!
[English translation by Massimiliano Autino]