RE: Conflicting visions for a World System

You asked to be corrected.

I don't recall anyone arguing that there should be a world government of 
the party
and for the party.  I think "dictatorship of the proletariat" is failed 
idea with few
supporters today.

Rather, I hear some argue that there should be a more just and equal world,
culturally, politically, economically.  Two different approaches I've seen 
discussed
or implied include those who see a world government as the best means and 
those who
argue for a state-by-state approach.   There may be a third, fourth, fifth 
possible
outcomes.

>Could one not envision a World Confederation of Independent States, having
>some mechanisms for peacefully resolving disputes among members and a few
>more, while in general leaving members free to organize themselves
>according to the wishes of their people?

This is about what we already have: the United Nations, which is a 
mechanism which
enforces world political and economic inequalities because it is not 
democratic nor
could it be until it pursues policies that create economic equality.  
Otherwise
democracy is (has been) a joke at best.  What needs to be added to this 
picture, for
example, are world-government determined policies and mechanisms that 
distribute
wealth and political power far more evenly.  This ought to include, for 
example, the
conversion of production for profit enterprises to democratically run 
non-profits,
global regulation/welfare-state (minimum wage, safety regulations, 
child-labor laws,
education, health, pollution controls, etc.).  And one could go on.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu]On
>Behalf Of Paul Riesz
>Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2000 9:20 PM
>To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
>Subject: Conflicting visions for a World System
>
>
>As far as I can understand it (please correct me if I am wrong) the basic
>goal of this group is to  argue about a better system for a world wide
>society.
>
>There seem to be 2 opposite visions; which I should like to define as
>1. the extreme capitalistic one = GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD, BY THE RICH and
>FOR THE RICH.
>2. And the extreme Marxist one = GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD, BY THE PARTY and
>FOR THE PARTY.
>
>What about a 3rd option?
>
>Greetings              Paul Riesz