Orion Digest №15 - Revolution vs. Imperialism in the Formation of Federation

Discussion of principles and tenets can only carry us so far — inevitably, if we are to change the world for the better, we must turn out thoughts to the implementation of theory. Due to the range of political climates and economic systems throughout the world, there will be a variety of strategies for bringing about change in each individual nation, but there are a few basic, universal ideas that we can strike at.

World federalism implies the existence of a world federation, and the less strict the requirements are, the more cooperative the nations of the world will be in joining said organization. However, if you try to be more specific with what is permitted within nations, and approach a more practical and moral level of regulation, less receptive countries will back out, refusing to cede over authority. You can always give up there and either not pursue federation or ease up on requirements, but compromise in the face of climate and humanitarian crises is not an option we should entertain.

The formation of a world federation, in practice, would likely see only a few nations joining if we go towards the stricter side of the spectrum — a group of nations that are directed to reduce their environmental footprint and implement or represent democracy in both economy and government, as well as protecting fundamental human rights. To truly accomplish the goal of human rights being protected and the implementation of democratic economy, the entire world would need to be part of such a federation (or at least, the entire industrial world). So the question becomes then how we would deal with non-member nations, especially ones that do not stand for their citizens.

The obvious answer, at first, is diplomacy — any conflict can be avoided with proper communication, though the level of understanding that communication involves can be incredibly difficult to obtain due to biases and confusion. If we could negotiate with other nations without compromising our principles, we could likely build our world federation with some compromise and collaboration. If there is a diplomatic solution to things, it should always be our first priority to take it.

Beyond that, if we should seek to make our federation complete, we would need to expand to include other nations to ensure protections, which is where we reach our chief moral dilemma. Imperialist nations in the past have attempted to conquer territory and other peoples through warfare and excessive force, which has resulted in the destruction and exploitation of cultures and populations. Today, warfare is used as a tactic for entities to acquire resources at the expense of innocent civilians and pre-existing government structures — the final and most vile expression of capitalist and nationalist greed is to take from others no matter the cost.

At the same time, our goal in the creation of a eco-centric and socialist world federation is to ensure, as always, the survival and prosperity of humanity, which means that all of humanity must have inalienable rights and that we are directed on a path that allows Earth to recover and saves us from certain extinction. In this potential divide, where we have a world federation up against industrial superpowers and non-democratic nations, leaving them be would abandon our central goal, and would leave the problems we face only half-solved. And if there are people who still suffer and a planet that is still dying, halfway is not good enough, and it will never be.

We cannot give up until we accomplish our goal, but we also cannot allow ourselves to subscribe to the same barbaric imperialism that has brutalized large swathes of the world and ended millions of lives. But war is not the only lesson history has to teach us, and it remains the best teacher, for if we truly want to establish a federation that benefits the people, we can play to the strengths of the common citizen as well.

Some of the most impactful and formative events of the last few centuries have been revolutions. A revolution, by definition, is the “forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system”, and is typically done by the distressed citizens of a nation who have become dissatisfied with their respective system of government, and wish not to make changes through the natural process of governing but through quicker and more decisive action; the abolition of the system entirely as opposed to gradual modification. Some revolutions are of a colony trying to gain independence, however, others consist of a nation revolting against the government itself, with the goal being unfinished until a new system is put into place.

Revolutions are bloody, especially depending on the temper of the rebels and the defenders, but the morality of a revolution is much different. In a war, one can separate themselves from the enemy, because they are a different people, a different culture — they are alien, and so we can tell ourselves the lie that it is not immoral to kill them, to take what they have and destroy their will. It’s still a lie, as they are our fellow humans, but one that is easier to swallow. But a revolution pits you against your people — can you bring yourself to devastate your own land, to destroy your own citizens? The government no longer has all of the country behind it, for it has to contend against its own strength, divided.

A moral leader will not use such excessive force against their own people, though moral leaders can often be in short supply. The revolution is often in the name of the people and the country, a form of restoration as opposed to simply having a foreign entity impress themselves onto the nation. So while still a war, it is one that is much harder to fight from a moral stance on the part of the defender. On the other hand, for the people, revolution can be considered a rallying cry — if common people are standing up against the government, they will be likely to make changes that benefit other citizens, using revolution as their engine of change. Depending on the previous state of their nation, such an upheaval may easily garner sympathy and support from those who feel solidarity with the revolution.

Returning to our thought experiment, in a world where a progressive world federation has established itself and is facing several nations that refuse to come to the terms, war may not be a moral option, but if the citizens of said nations were to decide for themselves to bring about change, it would potentially avoid many of the problems of imperialistic conquest — expending the resources of the burgeoning federation, providing fuel for nationalist rallying, alienating the nation towards the victor, etc. Instead, if they decided to revolt and establish a system that agreed to the conditions, they could join the federation and benefit from the shared resources and coordination. In the case of such a revolution, the greatest weapon of a federation would not be the capacity to make war, but to choose a specific side to support.

The important thing about cooperating on a international scale is that it must be voluntary, but the desire to unite does not depend on the governments of Earth; it depends on the will of the people. And if we are able to provide an offer of mutual prosperity, of protection, both social and economic — it will be an offer appealing to citizens of other nations, and whether through diplomacy and democracy, or a more assertive demonstration of their interests, those people will decide for themselves whether to take it.

- DKTC FL