multilevel dialectical global totality

Thanks, Richard, you just sparked an intriguing idea in my mind --
related to global Keynesianism, transnational socialism etc. ---

We are dealing with a multilevel dialectical global totality. World society
has many analytic and praxeological levels. It's a totality where all the
parts and levels are interdependent (dialectically related to each other) --
the global level influences the national and local levels (see WS
literature) and vice versa, the local, national etc levels influence the
world level. They do not only "influence" each other; they react to each
other.

Impulses for change in a totality can come from anywhere. "Only bottom up"
or "only top down" as strategies contradicts the concept of a dialectical
totality.

Thus, it is alright, if some people do some global Keynesianism at the
global level and some others do some grassroots pressure at the local level,
etc. In a multilevel dialectical global totality it all reinforces one
another.

Learn from the world's women (American women, at least):
BEDROOM level action: behave, no wife beating
DINING ROOM level action: behave, no sexist language, no more "chicks"
JOB PLACE level: behave, no more sexual exploitation of female staff
COURT level: behave, pay up for your woman and kids
NATIONAL POLITICAL level: behave, legislation--Equal Rights Amendsments etc.
Women have figured this all out -- it's a multilevel dialectical totality.

If it's true for American women, it's got to be true for the world, n'est-ce
pas?

GK







-----Original Message-----
From: Richard N Hutchinson <rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU>
To: g kohler <gkohler@accglobal.net>
Cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: April 20, 2000 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: global keynesianism


>I'm quite sure that Samir did not mean too radical in the sense of the
>goal -- he meant too radical in terms of praxis.
>
>He does advocate institutional reforms of the IMF and so forth, and sees
>that as part of the agenda of progressive forces of the North.  But his
>analysis of the polarizing nature of global capitalism leads him to
>advocate a long-range strategy of "popular nationalism" in the periphery.
>The purpose of institutional reforms is to facilitate "polycentrism," and
>the possibility of progressive transformation in the periphery.
>
>In other words, he is not criticising this reform proposal because it goes
>too far, but because his assessment is that it is based on idealist
>assumptions about what is possible right now at the level of reforming
>core-dominated institutions. His strategy is a  revolutionary one,
>although far from orthodox.
>
>RH
>
>