One Belt – One Road [OBOR] – One World – From Economy of Comparative Advantage to Socio-Politics of Cooperative Progressing.
One Belt – One Road – One World – Digitisation of Life as Chinese Lifestyle

One Belt – One Road [OBOR] – One World – From Economy of Comparative Advantage to Socio-Politics of Cooperative Progressing.
One Belt – One Road – One World – Digitisation of Life as Chinese Lifestyle

[t]his is directly related to the loss of human proportions in science which I mentioned before. Science-at any rate in my way of considering it- is a mental activity, something that you do much more with your head than with your hands.
‘wo Jeder nicht einen ausschließlichen Kreis der Tätigkeit hat, sondern sich in jedem beliebigen Zweige ausbilden kann, die Gesellschaft die allgemeine Produktion regelt und mir eben dadurch möglich macht, heute dies, morgen jenes zu tun, morgens zu jagen, nachmittags zu fischen, abends Viehzucht zu treiben, nach dem Essen zu kritisieren, wie ich gerade Lust habe, ohne je Jäger, Fischer, Hirt oder Kritiker zu werden.’
wenngleich genau dieser seit langem und immer weiter zunehmend durch Marktaustausch zu einem sandigen Grund wird, auf dem sich schlecht bauen lässt. Nicht das gesprochene Wort gilt, sondern die bits und bites, die zu Markte getragen werden können. Und dies wird leider auch durch die gegenwärtige Privatisierung und Sparpolitik weiter getrieben. Von dem Ort hier – Availles-Limouzine – gibt es gleichsam nur einen Weg: hinaus in die Stadt, denn hier selbst gibt es zunehmend weniger. Und den Weg zu beschreiten bedeutet: eine viel zu lange Radfahrt nach Poitier z.B. [selbst noch klein genug], ein Privatauto, denn es gibt nicht Bus oder Bahn, vielleicht dann ‘sharing economy’ im wahren Sinn von Fahrgemeinschaften oder aber schlussendlich Umzug = Urbanisierung. Ein Teufelskreis, denn je weniger Menschen hier leben, desto geringer die Bereitschaft, Infrastruktur zu erhalten – und alle Bemühungen erscheinen einem oft selbst als Kampf gegen Windmühlen – gerade fällt mir hier die hervorragende Aufführung in Wien, früher in diesem Jahr, ein. So direkt, wie man es hier erfährt, erlebt, so schön laesst es sich schwerlich im Textbuch beschreiben. Und so wenig wird es sicher von vielen so empfunden – von den vielen, fuer die es ‘Alltag’ ist, und nicht, wie fuer mich derzeit, ‘Leben im Kontrast-Programm’. Und auch Leben im einer Art persönlicher Konflikte: verlassene Freuden, Freunden und Leben und Lieben,a ich verlassene Reibungspunkte, verpasste und gar joint-venture-unterdrückte Möglichkeiten guter, aber nicht ranking-relevanter Hochschulerziehungsarbeit, aus verschiedenen Gründen versäumte Erfahrungen auch in jenem Land, das mir Gastlichkeit für über zwei Jahre anbot, verpasst nicht zuletzt aus meinem ‘Verschulden’ – eine Freundin aus China sagte einst, sie unternehme selbst wenig: ‘ich weiss nie so recht, warum ich soviel Aufwand treiben soll.’ Und das ist auch mein Problem, wenngleich ich dann gelegentlich erfahre, wie lohnenswert solche Ausflüge doch sein können – wenn man sich die Zeit und Ruhe dafür nimmt, wenn man Gelegenheit hat, den tatsächlichen Grund als Neuland zu erfahren, nicht nur die Standardimages. Zeit und Ruhe auch und gerade eben im Zusammenhang mit den locals, soweit er dann bei einem ungezwungenen Kaffee oder Tee möglich ist.In the evening and at night, my friend Albert Fuchs and I often walked through the beautiful streets of Vienna, and we talked endlessly about writing: what made a text genuine, what caused a poem to be good. We distinguished between Aussage (statement) and Ausdruck (expression), and we concluded that only the genius could “express,” whereas any talent could “state.” Something of this distinction has remained with me, and I would still say that only what is “stated” can be translated, but not what is “expressed.”
Du erinnerst Dich vielleicht an die kleine Auseinandersetzung, als es um meine Wiederwahl ging? ‘Ich verstehe oft nicht, was Du sagen willst, befürchte daher Probleme, in der Zusammenarbeit,’ so der eine Mit-Kandidat – und damit sind wir wieder beim Thema des Anfangs … ‘Im Grunde sind wir alle gute Kerle, nur haben wir keine Lust, uns ernsthaft auf Debatten einzulassen.’ Die Alternative: Wir diskutieren darüber, dass wir eigentlich viel zu wenig diskutieren – freilich in der intelektuell-besseren Formulierung des zweiten Teils: wir beklagen das Fehlen von diskursiven Räumen … .Es wäre schön, wenn wir Gelegenheit bald finden zu einem Treffen – leider dieses Mal wohl nicht im Kőleves Vendéglő …Bis dahin gruesst ganz herzlich Peter
The following are notes made in preparation of a presentation in La Habana, Republic of Cuba in December 2012.
++++++++++++++++
The background of this presentation is actually far away – a presentation given by my friend and colleague Laurent J.G. van der Maesen at the 2012 Life & Development Forum in Hangzhou. From there some interest had been established to colleagues here in Cuba. Last year’s forum has to be characterised as
Looking at the general agenda of global developments, there are surely many contingencies. However, one may point on at least the following moments as characterising.
NB: In this light socialism had been to some extent caught in the same danger, namely as far as applied the basic principle of capitalist development for an extended time: the focus on the development of the productive forces (with reference to Marx: the development of department I) had been initially surely important; however, it would have been necessary to determine a point from where development is not about development of productive forces, thus implicitly the orientation on quantitative growth of consumption but about development of the quality of goods produced in department II, i.e. the development of means of consumption (in the widest sense) as means of developing social quality.
++++++++++++++++
The thesis is that in order to fully understand today’s challenges we have to look at the roots of capitalism in a more complex way – reaching beyond the economic and subsequent political perspective. In other words it is about fundamentally allowing the return of political economy in its true sense as investigation of the
organic unity of economy and polity
(Perry Andersen).
Such an approach stands against the development of a theory of political economy in a traditional sense of a politico-moral backing of economic processes as we know it for instance from Adam Smith.
Arte. Es la naturaleza creada por el hombre
(José Martí)
A major and fundamental flaws of capitalist development can be seen on the following moments:
However, seeing this pattern as societal phenomenon we may summarise it as – for capitalist societies secular – process which Niklas Luhmann famously expressed by saying
All could be different but I nearly cannot change anything.
Paradoxically this goes hand in hand with the fact that the individual is made responsible for everything, being seen as rational actor with unlimited capacities to shape his/her life.
++++++++++++++++
I do not want to discuss in detail any question of human rights and relevant questions of legal philosophy (see Herrmann: God, Rights, Law and a Good Society; Bremen/Oxford: EHV Academicpress, 2012; Rights – Developing Ownership by Linking Control over Space and Time; Bremen/Oxford: EHV Academicpress, 2012). However, one point is of crucial importance, namely the fact that the Universal Declaration argues solely on the basis of the understanding of individualism in the form in which it emerged from the Western enlightenment. Seen in this perspective it is no surprise that it actually emphasises the ‘normality of the capitalist mode of production’ – with the legimitation of employment as actual basis of human existence, thus also providing a ground for defining ‘citizenship’. And furthermore it is from here that human rights are defined as ‘moral obligation’ (see Herrmann: Presentation Narrowing the Gap Between the World’s Richest and Poorest. Contribution for the Deutsche Welle GLOBAL MEDIA FORUM 2011).
For further exploration we may briefly look at a briefing paper Human Rights and Poverty: Is Poverty a Violation of Human Rights? Edited by the Centre of Economic and Social Rights. It
suggest[s] that violations of human rights can be cause, consequence or constitutive element of poverty.
This is surely important – and it has to be acknowledged that the document mentions as one of the consequences also
the destruction or denial of access to productive resources [which] can clearly cause poverty.
However, the overall formulation of the three points suggests that rights are a matter of provision rather than a matter of constituting and maintaining ‘active citizenship’. Talking then of the three dimensions of
respect, protect and fulfil
is more about a top-down approach than allowing the development of a bottom-up-approach towards rights. And indeed, this supports the thesis that HR are fundamentally an add-on, established to secure a capitalist world order. As any law, human rights law is also just a means – in the words of Iredell Jenkins:
Positive law assumes an ordered social context that exhibits certain deficiencies: it envisages more desirable – an ideal – ordering of the context; it prescribes the steps to be taken in order to move the actual towards the ideal; and it orders that these measures be instituted. That is, positive law is at once expository, normative prescriptive, advisory, and imperative. But it is positive law as a means to an end …
(Jenkins, Iredell: Social Order and the Limits of Law. A Theoretical Essay; Princeton: Princeton University Press 1980: ibid. 75)
Based on such an approach we face the following fundamental limitations in the relevant HR-debates:
Though it is at this stage only a short point, I think it is important to point out that many of contemporary debates focus too much on ‘technical’ and ‘individual solutions’, particularistic in character, to current challenges. These remain very much in the framework of individualised strategies. Though surely an important contribution to overall debates, we can point on the important limitation of the work by Mahbub ul Haq and Amartya Sen. In short their orientation is about development of humans and not about human development, let alone about development of human relationality. This means not least that an important perspective remains faded out, namely the perspective of socio-human existence as part of a complex socio-natural setting. Thus we may also say that the major and fundamental problem of the dominant conceptualisation of human rights remains founded in the dissolution of the individual from its genuine social context. With this we find the reduction of the social as matter of relationships of individuals.
++++++++++++++++
Obviously, this falls short in providing a fundamentally valid perspective on today’s structures. Early capitalist societies had been moving to a systematic de-socialisation of personalities and the undermining of genuine social processes. This could be seen in the difficulties Adam Smith faced in maintaining moral standards within the taken economic perspective – finally resulting in the tendency to separate the question of wealth of a nation from moral sentiments. And equally we can see these difficulties when it comes to German philosophy as for instance expressed in the tension of different reasons in the works by Immanuel Kant.
The Social Quality Approach redresses this flaw by focussing on the social, understood as noun. It
may be conceived as the result of the dialectic (constitutive dependency/c.i.) between processes of self-realization and the formation of collective identities.
(Gaspers, Des et altera, 2013: Connecting ‘Human’ and ‘Social’ Discourses …: 24)
++++++++++++++++
For the further discussion I want to refer to more recent debates, not least stimulated by developments in Latin-American countries, in particular Bolivia, Ecuador and in the meantime Venezuela. The main point of reference is the constitutional principle of buen vivir or vivir biene. Important is that the standard of defining rights and for the definition of the social is not the individual and his/her well-being. Nor is it about the human existence as such. Instead,
The emphasis is on ‘joint existence’ and its sustainability.
++++++++++++++++
With this in mind, the following issues are of utmost importance – here posed as questions that have to be elaborated and on which the answer has to be searched.
an empirical study that 45 percent of U.S. GNP was devoted to the transaction sector in 1970
(North, Douglass C., 1994: Economic Performance Through Time; in: The American Economic Review. Vol 84.3: 359-368; here: 360)
These are issues that need to be investigated more thoroughly not least in a global perspective.
NB: Stating this does not mean that the development actually follows this path. In actual fact we find right now an extremely problematic development in a global perspective. It is still very much about continuing the old pattern of industrialisation on the one hand – now shifting anew to the NICs and also to new centres (as not least Japan and China); and this going hand in hand with a qualitative orientation of consumer goods in the ‘traditional centres’ (as in especially US and [in particular the old] EU). However, as much as this development is not about a simple ‘shift’ by way of replacement, it is obvious that this development cannot be socially sustainable (let alone sustainable in terms of a simple environmental understanding).
++++++++++++++++
Let me briefly return to the question of rights in general and in particular human rights. Commonly the Western understanding of rights – this had been outlined earlier – is structurally based n individualism. It may even be said that the very concept of rights depends in its ‘modern’ form on the existence of the bourgeois-citoyen individual. The citoyen – addressed as such during the revolutionary times of – had been understood as individual, socialised at most by reference to the categorical imperative as laid down in 1788 in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of the Practical Reason:
Act so that the maxim of thy will can always at the same time hold good as a principle of universal legislation.
This is based on the assumption of the independent, self-referential though rational individual actor. The understanding of rights developing against such a background can only be protectionist in its very character: it is the protection of individuals against possible infringements by others or the protection of individuals against violation by the state (to some extent an exception in this context is the notion put forward by T. Hobbes). To the extent to which we see the development of ‘modern commons’ – in various ways reflected since a long time, for instance by the common goods, general interest, volonté génerale or volonté du tout …) – and to the extent to which collective actors are emerging as truly relevant (see e.g. Meyer, John W., 2010: World Society, Institutional Theories, and the Actor; in: Annual Review of Sociology, 2010: 36: 1-20), we are asked to develop a new understanding of rights. This may be characterised in short by pointing on two moments:
may be conceived as the result of the dialectic (constitutive dependency/c.i.) between processes of self-realization and the formation of collective identities.
(Gaspers, Des et altera, 2013: Connecting ‘Human’ and ‘Social’ Discourses …: 24)
[1] This is even more needed as long as we do not have a global actor in the traditional sense (as e.g. a ‘global state’)