RE: Government of the world by the party and for the party

You really have a poor grasp of Marxism.  Let me explain.

>Elson:
>"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
>a failed idea with few supporters today."
>
>The fact that this idea is not openly promoted, does not make it disappear.
>There is talk of DEMOCRATIC MARXISM, but its adherents never explain, how
>it might work.

First, the basic point of Marxism is equality, liberty, democracy.  I agree 
that
these ideals were not achieved by the communist movements that came to 
power in the
periphery.  They were indeed contradictory (problems arising, in my view, 
from the
attempt to create socialism in one country).  But the Western socialists -- 
those the
core states -- have made their advances (8 hour working day, welfare-state, 
etc.)
through the so-called "democratic" governments in the wealthy states, but 
could do so
only because they were located in the core.

Either way, Marxists movements have never created an alternative social 
system, but
only operated at the level of nation-states within the capitalist 
world-system.

>Judging from past experience one can only conclude that the chances for
>success of such a system are very slim indeed, since:
>The core ideas of Marxism, such as that all means of production must belong
>to the State, can only be realized by an enormous concentration of power
>over people's lives in the hands of government.

State owned production is not a core idea of Marxism.  It was a policy of 
certain
Marxist-Leftist political groups -- socialists.  There are other many other 
Marxists
with a variety of suggestions for how production should be democratically 
run.  In
the American labor movement, for instance, the Knights of Labor established 
worker
owned and run factories, i.e. co-ops.  I don't personally think there is 
one best
way, but that a egalitarian world-system would be composed of a variety of 
forms of
labor control, as our world does today.  But in an egalitarian system, 
production
decisions and distribution of wealth would be far democratic rather than 
now in which
most production decisions take place with small sovereign dictatorships 
(i.e. private
enterprises).

>Obviously wielding such power wisely and effectively needs qualities
>exceedingly rare among humans. Finding individuals  with such rare
>qualities is in itself already very difficult, but only under the most
>fortunate circumstances could one hope, that they could combine with what
>is required to win violent revolutions or to rise to the highest levels of
>party cadres through adept maneuvering .

You're making the classical Conservative argument against democratic 
government here.
Democracy, including that which is extended to the sphere of production 
(thus
allowing real democracy within the existing so-called democratic states)  
It doesn't
hinge on individuals.  It simply hinges on democratic mechanisms enforced 
by the
sovereign people.

>Cuba's Fidel Castro and the leaders of post Maoist China might possibly
>qualify, but should a New World system depend on such a rare coincidence?
>Remember the saying, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
>absolutely.

Of course, and this all the more true in the Western democracies where 20% 
of the
population controls 80% of the wealth and about 80% or more of the 
political power
(because they are funded by the private, dictatorial enterprises).  They 
choose (buy)
the people's choices (and to such a glaring extent that the very idea of 
campaign
reform is actually an issue (one no doubt that will pass in the wind as did 
national
health care).

My previous post put forth suggestions on transforming the world-system.  
Others have
put forth perhaps better or similar ideas.  Read past posts.  Anyhow, when 
you agree
that the world-system must be made egalitarian, I'll respond to any of your 
future
posts.  Otherwise were better off spending our time working with those who 
agree to,
or nearly agree to, this premise.