global keynesianism/global social democracy

These discussions are typically not productive because diverse levels of
analysis and time frames are not disentangled.

There is much more agreement than meets the eye, if everyone is willing to
acknowledge that their preferred strategy/prescription for praxis is but
one level of a more complex reality.

1)
WHAT WE AGREE ON
It seems clear to me that (with perhaps an individual or two dissenting)
we all agree on the goal of some sort of "global keynesianism" as a
middle-run goal in the world-system.  We should not allow terminology to
obfuscate this -- perhaps keynesianism is not the best choice because it
is too narrow.  Global (green) social democracy (GSD) is probably more
inclusive, and focuses attention on the political dimension rather than
the economic, which is preferable because the latter lends itself more
easily to a technocratic conception.

2)
DISAGREEMENT ON THE ULTIMATE GOAL
There is disagreement on whether this is a more-or-less ultimate goal, or
merely a transitional phase on the road to socialism, defined not as state
ownership or a mixed economy, but in Marx's terms as the supersession of
commodified, alienated labor.  That should not prevent a common project
for the foreseeable future.  [Those who persist in reducing socialism to
the Gulag should not be surprised that they do not achieve consensus.  The
red/green agenda further complicates the basis of unity, although it is
also a compelling, urgent reason for unity ASAP.]


3)
DISAGREEMENT ON STRATEGY/PRAXIS
There is disagreement on the way from here to this "GSD state" (in both
senses, a state as in physics as well as in a global institutional
regime).  There is room for a variety of approaches, and if their
proponents are catholic and not baptist then most can be synergistic, and
unavoidable frictions in the global counterhegemonic project can be worked
out along the way.  There will probably be a) further (neo)leninist 
revolutions, and hopefully there will be b) peaceful, democratically
elected social democratic state projects as well.  At the same time, the
emerging global coalition will work toward c) reform of existing and
developing global institutions, including through d) the construction of a
transnational network that can both facilitate cooperation between
the peoples of the successful a) and b) projects as well as bring diverse
popular interests together to shape c).

4)
In conclusion, we would be more productive if less time was spent arguing
in either/or terms over the things we know we disagree on (ultimate goal,
preferred focus of praxis) in baptist sectarian fashion, and more
time was spent figuring out catholically how to best leverage our work
toward what we agree on as a middle-run goal.

Given the odds that any sort of Left will come to power in the core in the
immediate future, it is perfectly reasonable for those of us in the core
to focus, as part of the "Seattle coalition," on pressuring global
institutional reforms (in the direction of global social democracy).  But
this should not be posed as contrary to movements seeking greater autonomy
in the periphery, or core activists supporting those movements.

RH