A VIOLENT END TO THE PRESENT WORLD ORDER

Arno has invited me to post my ideas on this subject, Here they are:
To Arno:
In your posting on articles by Goldsmith and Luttwak you state that to find
these analyses interesting, does not necessarily mean, that you or anyone
else would or does endorse them.
For ordinary persons without an academic background like myself, the
foreseen catastrophic breakdown of the present World Systems seems to be
the completely logical conclusion of leaving unregulated market forces in
sole command of the World economy.
As to the critique by Drake, he says: "Given the sources, I think there is
little cause for concern -James Goldsmith's political perspicacity is
something of a joke,  and Luttwak simply rewrites whatever he has a grant
to do to fit his own (and his paymasters') ideological preoccupations of
the moment". His reference to the ideology of such sources is beside the
point, as long as he does not present a plausible refutation of their
arguments.
The notion, that such a historic development is inevitable, that humanity
can do nothing to save itself from such a disaster might have been true in
the past, but in our time, when information can be instantly distributed
world-wide and when Internet is accessible to so many people, this is no
longer the case.

Therefore one ought to discuss ways to prevent the prophesized disaster.
Marxists are only too willing to offer us their vision of an earthly
paradise as the only alternative available, but considering their past
performance, their remedy appears to be worse than the disease of
unfettered Laissez Faire. Fortunately a better option is available:
GLOBAL KEYNESIANISM:
The prescriptions of John Maynard Keynes have guided the world economy
during its greatest progress, but were then abandoned because unscrupulous
politicians started to stimulate national economies NOT DURING RECESSIONS,
BUT IN ORDER TO WIN ELECTIONS.

To apply his theories to the present world-wide situation would require 
1. a much higher degree of citizen's participation and vigilance
2. concentrating on a regulation of international trade trough establishing
the principle, that trade can only be reasonably free, if it also
reasonably balanced. (I should like to discuss why this principle is valid
and how it could be beneficial to all trading partners)
3. both for the reasons mentioned by Goldsmith and for the seemingly
unstoppable drive for more and more automation, unemployment has become
endemic in most of the industrialized world. To address this situation by
welfare or workfare is demeaning to participants and resented by taxpayers.
What seems to be the most logical solution is to establish a RIGHT TO WORK
principle and to carry it out by meaningful and well planned public work
schemes.

Of course many more aspects would have to be taken into account in order to
create a system, that would preserve the great capacity of creating wealth
of private enterprise, while actively reducing the immense differences
between rich and poor in the industrialized countries and the even more
terrible differences between the first and the 3rd world. The potential
destructiveness of rage among the underprivileged would not be eliminated
very quickly, but hopefully humans are patient enough to be satisfied, if
they can observe some real efforts being made to address their gravest
concerns.

Regards         Paul Riesz