As an old millennial having experienced childhood in the nineties, my generation grew up with the quintessential strongmen movies personified in big name characters like Rocky Balboa, Ivan Drago, & Apollo Creed as seen in the Rocky franchise. In Rocky 4, Dolph Lundgren portrayed a rather intimidating antihero; an opponent more machine than man. My generation briefly remembers a world before it was possible to Google our curiosities away. Exposure to the world in terms of different cultures, languages, & ways of life was primarily derived from movies like Rocky 4. Ivan Drago, Rocky’s deadly opponent having killed Apollo Creed in the boxing ring, seemingly revisited the literal definition of the New Soviet Man. Based on Marxist-Leninist propaganda officially sanctioned by the Soviet Communist Party, the new Soviet Man was described as the quintessential man of the future. He was a selfless, educated, healthy, & iron-willed true believer of the Soviet Communist Experiment liberated from the primitive superstitions of the past.
Komsomol pioneers were taught to emulate the image of the New Soviet Man as a high example of what it meant to be civilized in the atomic age. The imagery associated with such a patriarchal figure was assumed culturally eternal: the existence of the Soviet state depended on raising new Soviet men to achieve world communism. The lowering of the Soviet flag for the last time on December 25th, 1991 reminded any ethos for civilization cannot be achieved by totalitarian propaganda alone. What was the New Soviet Man beyond an existential allegory of perfection that contradicted the very existence of the empire it was supposed to serve? This begs a digressive question: what came first, the nation or the idea that bore it into a conceptual reality? Is ethnology the science of matter-of-fact anthropological realities evolved over geographic circumstance & sociological happenstance? The United States & former Soviet Union shared one existential commonality: they were both superstates based on a diabolically opposed blueprint of ideas. The idea of a nation is validated by its supporting philosophy of civilization.
The end of the Cold War created a multipolar geopolitical power vacuum. It rapidly became evident a world of superimposed unilateralism is one where realpolitik is applied in lopsided absolutes. The tribalisms of antiquity are representative of the nationalisms of today. It is for this reason why we have global governance, but no world federalism. Historians often argue history repeated is history forsaken. Perhaps the repetition of history can be seen as an opportunity to get history right? The question is: has the United Nations become too big to fail? How many activists prospecting United Nations reform have proposed a glasnost & perestroika parallel to Cold War history? To many, the United Nations is seen as an organization of working disconnects & literal contradictions where eager diplomats seek to passively make self-serving zero-sum legacies. The United Nations could restore relevance & credibility to generations y & z by offering a consciousness of “supracultural awareness” to the abysmal war cries of nationalism. How can world federalism be sustained as a multicultural reality under the auspicious of a “New International Man?”
Is there such thing? In many ways, Greek mythology is illustrative of man’s hopes, desires, & sufferings. Each polytheistic deity of ancient Hellas subscribes to an allegorical attribute of human nature. One of the most recognizable Titans is Atlas. He is no God. He is an eager everyman bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders with hopes of high posterity. A New International Man is an equal opportunity civilization builder. He sees no divisions in nations. He only sees peoples, cultures, & the infinite potential of man to build a world that could be as opposed to what it has become. He is not an emptyheaded ideologue disconnected from reality. He is a big picture thinker & centenarian planner. Beyond history, he views our future as our common heritage. He is dedicated to eliminating weapons of mass destruction, biological, & chemical warfare. He sees peaceful potential for everything, but is no pacifist realizing force is at times necessary to maintain peace. His mightiest sword is the pen. He believes every race, nation, & culture of the world has new international men to offer to the perpetual discourse of world peace.
Yet, can world federalism become a cultural phenomenon personified in the idea of the New International Man?