The open letter to George Soros about his book

                                            “George Soros about globalization”

                                                         A. Voin

                                                                                                                                    10.7.06

      First of all I am greeting your honored intention to improve life conditions in the world. I agree with you that globalization, which influences at to-days reality and can bring even bigger consequences in future, has as positive, so negative sides. And it demands from us efforts to reduce negative consequences or to compensate them. I agree that for this purpose we must increase the role of existing international organizations and create new ones/. I also agree that with the strategy, which you propose, to stimulate national governments to fulfill programs education, ecologic programs and so on.

     But I am dono’t agree to except from consideration (as you has done that in your book and in your project of solution of problems connected with globalization) the value aspect of the problem. You admit that such aspect exist, but think that it is possible to solve problems of stable development in the world and reducing of international conflicts only by means institutional measures and appropriate laws, without to solve simulteaneoiusly at value problem. You are wrong in this point.

    Any reforms, any programs and any institutions works in completely different ways in different societies  with different systems of values. The ignoring of this fact  led West to many mistakes in international politics but nevertheless West (and you in particular) continues to do these mistakes.

     Let’s take for example the Humeiny’s revolution in Iran. Before it shah of Iran actualize at reforms in direction of open society including democratization, market economy and civil society. But including also at the value system of West. This system sharply differs from adopted in Islamic world. I shall return in further  to the question which system better and in which point and if it is possible to speak about optimal system of values for al mankind. Now I only remark that the ignoring by West, which helped to shah to conduct reforms in Iran, at value aspect in the situation brings Humeiny’s revolution, nevertheless Iranian received from shah growing life level, better medical treatment, education and so on. The ignoring of value problem in Iran has led not only to loosing by West at Iran as potential ally, but this is main reason of to-days conflict between West and Islamic world.

     Something like that has happened with Russia in 90-th. In times of Elcin Russia push forward to West, to democracy and open society. But together with democracy, market economy and open society West attaches to Russia its system of values. What means “attach”? Naturally, it doesn’t means by weapons. But yet in period of Soviet Union and now West stipulates its economic aid to Russia and Ukraine by observing of human rights. It is the kind of soft attaching. It is possible to consider such soft attaching as acceptable (even not to use the world “attaching”) if values in consideration are undisputable. But up today any accepted by all the world system of values or method substantiation of such system doesn’t exist. And forestalling I want to say that in the packet of human rights demanded by West there are rights such as freedom political speech and demonstrations, which correspond to optimal system of values, formulated and substantiated by me and there are such as freedom of sexual perversions and prostitution, for example, which doesn’t correspond to it. In any case Russia and its people together with some negative characters in its tradition and mentality has high spiritual culture and some from attaching to it values don’t correspond to this tradition. As a result the course of Elcin on democracy and union with West was changed by course of Putin on autoritarism and on something like cold war with West. By the way Putin didn’t made any Putsch in stile of Hitler for that. He was literally crowned by people and has high popularity up today. The reason of such development is the same in Russia and in Iran: people didn’t receive at western system of values and together with it turns away also from mane good things, which in times of Elcin were adopted By Russia from the West.

      Now let’s return to the question about the relation between various systems of values. Of course, the system, which leads to international terrorism, is bad system. Also traditional system of values of Russian people, which during all its history generates at totalitarian forms of governing of state, is far away from ideal. But it doesn’t mean that it is nothing good in these two systems. And according my impression from your book, you hardly would claim that the western system of values is ideal. But even I am wrong and you recon that this system is ideal that must be substantiated, proved. It’s necessary to convince people to adopt this, suppose, ideal system. To convince with help of arguments, not through using of force or with help of financial stimulus, or through zombeeing them with help of mass propagating.

      Therefore together with institutional measures, which you propose, we need today two things. At first we need philosophy, which would propose the optimal system of values for all mankind and  substantiates it. Secondly we need representative enough and independent from any governments, political parties and religion confession forum, on which such philosophy (or number of philosophies, proposing each its own system of values) can be discussed and results of this discussion be represented to all mankind.

     I pretend that I have create  such philosophy. On base of approach developed in my theory of cognition I have formulated and have based the optimal theory of moral proceeding from common part in nature of each human been  and in each society independently from its formation, political regime and level of technology. («Неоационализм» (Newrationalism), Kiev,1992).Also I have used this approach (with appropriate adaptation) to investigate the Bible and have shown that the moral and the system of values issuing in such a way from its teaching are the same, which we receive in pure rational way proceeding from common part in nature of human been and society. («От Моисея до постмодернизма. Движение идеи» (“From Moses to postmodernism. Evolution of idea”, Kiev, 1999). I can do analogical procedure also with Koran and I am sure that the issuing in such a way from it moral and system of values will be more or less the same that issued from Bible or received in pure rational way.

     But I met with the problem to deliver my philosophy to world society.  Big philosophies handling with values always met opposition from persons and gropes possessing power independently from type of power and organization of society. Even in democratic societies all philosophical journals and publishers, especially connected with religion confessions, have their ideology and doesn’t want even to consider something not correspond to their ideology. There are also governments, which based themselves on some ideology and even in democratic societies although they take in account opinion of large gropes of population, but with opinion of one philosopher they not only doesn’t consider, but if they see in his philosophy some nuisance for them, they also are able to screw such one. Naturally in democratic societies governments don’t use for that killers (may be sometimes) or political jails, but they have enough another tools for to squeeze such one so that he wouldn’t earn money not only to pay for publication of his books, even to bay food. There are also many ways to harm the health of such one.

     That is why it is so importantly to include in your institutional program at the special international forum predestined for discussion of works devoted to optimal for al mankind system of values. The leadership of such forum must be, as I said, independent from governments, parties and confessions and must include representatives of different philosophical schools and religion confessions.

     I think it is important also for you personally, because, as you know, your philanthropic activity is evaluated ambivalently enough, at least in Russia and Ukraine. Many people think that you spent part of your incomes received due to globalization for destroying at traditional values of Russians and Ukrainians, what in future must help you to receive bigger income.

     By the way, the continual exhibition of art, which you have organized in Kiev Mogilyan Academy, stipulating agreement of direction of Academy on that by your financial aid, objectively helps to such opinion.  I am sure that you have not bad intention and may be this exhibition was organized by your bureaucrats without your knowledge, but in any case it creates such impression.

      If you would organize such forum you give honored answer to these accusations.

     With respect!

     Alexander Voin, PhD, academician of the International Academy of Informatization, president of International Institute “Philosophy and problems of society’ (www.philprob.narod.ru).

     P.S. On this site you can find above mentioned my books and other my works. Although most of them are by Russian, but two articles – “The problem of absoluteness – relativity of scientific cognition and the general method of substantiation” and “Bioethics or optimal ethics” are by English. From them you can receive impression about my approach to the problem.