Re: PFPC

        Once again Boris Stremlin's post is both constructive and very
much to the point.  I have never expected anyone to agree with me, but, as
he generously notes by his reference to my 40-year-old phrase "the will to
agree," I have long hoped that most forward-looking folks would eventually
come to agree with each other.  The will to agree is mostly about "will,"
about the emergence of a new mind-set, for want of a better term, in which
even congenitally dissenting dissenters would come to realize the need to
set aside some of their well-reasoned grounds for dissent, and would
strive to compromise, reconcile differences, and work for a common front,
as in the ill-starred but nevertheless admirable international effort to
erect a "popular front" against the seemingly invincible menace of
fascism in the 1930s.  In my judgment as a historian, that historical
moment, roughly from 1936 to 1940, was no less terrifying than anything we
confront today.  With hindsight we can see that the obliteration of that
particular bogeyman was only a decade away, but very few observers in 1940
foresaw it.

        On Stremlin's specific comments, first, I did not mean to imply
that current (or maybe even future) semiperipheral regimes would blaze
trails.  I was thinking of large numbers of progressive elements within
semiperipheral countries.  In any event, as I understand it, China and
India are now widely regarded as semiperipheral countries in their own
right.  China, for sure.  But do not confuse the regimes in power there in
early 2003 with the prospects for revolutionary thought and action by many
independently Left Chinese and Indians over the next few decades.  The
regimes are of course almost hopelessly compromised by their complicity
in a world-system dictated largely by the imperatives of megacorporate
capitalism and Euro-American imperialism.  But I was not thinking of
regimes.

        Chase-Dunn, Hall, and Boswell have generally shared my assumption
of the need for a democratic world-government as a transitional strategy
to full local autonomy.  Of course they do not endorse every word I have
ever perpetrated on the subject, nor has Wallerstein, but if I am wrong on
this, I would be glad to be corrected by them or anyone else.  Well,
that's a damned lie, I would not be glad!  But I would certainly and
respectfully concede that I have misunderstood them.

        Would a central government willingly surrender power to regional
and local authorities after they agree that its work has been done?  I
think I have already answered that.  It would probably be reluctant to
admit its obsolescence, and might even fight back, but if so, if it was
really and finally obsolescent, then it should receive the thanks of a
grateful humankind and face whatever retirement plans or firing squads it
might richly deserve.  My main point is that only an authentically
representative, deliberative, and universal regime would have the vision
and wisdom to determine when the playing field is really equal, when all
peoples have had a fair chance to contribute to the global weal, when our
single biosphere is truly safeguarded against theft and rape by every
segment of our species.  Might there be savage conflict and civil war?  Of
course.  The whole history of our species is punctuated repeatedly by
self-serving fratricide.  But there has also been inconceivably vast
progress in our perception of the means, the goals, and the ends of human
redemption.  I refuse--at least so far!--to despair.

        Warren


On Mon, 12 May 2003, Boris Stremlin wrote:

> > I agree with Warren Wagar on two points.  First, any
> > political movement, regardless of its beliefs or
> > agenda, has an organizational center (or a
> > vanguard).
> > I also agree that power politics is here to stay for
> > the foreseeable future (though its form may undergo
> > drastic changes).  It is precisely because I agree
> > with these two points that I remain puzzled by the
> > bulk of the "Peoples Century" project as laid out by
> > Warren Wagar.  First of all, the onset of the
> > electronic era and the internet notwithstanding, he
> > himself recognizes the "chief initiative" will have
> > to
> > be taken by certain countries (in the
> > semiperiphery).
> > I would add that countries taking chief initiative
> > also employ factories, use currency issued by
> > central
> > banks and deploy armies, all three of which are
> > located in geographically situated entities, and not
> > on the internet.  It has also been pointed out (by
> > e.g. Randall Collins) that "live" interaction will
> > continue to be key in forming intellectual
> > movements.
> > In light of all this, regional realities will
> > continue
> > to crucially effect the way in which particular
> > countries conduct themselves in the ongoing process
> > of
> > systemic transformation.  I am not convinced by
> > Chase-Dunn's location of centrality in an amorphous
> > semi-periphery - it seems to me far more likely that
> > the lead in equalizing global power and wealth will
> > be
> > taken by countries such as China and India, because
> > they are already politically centralized, and
> > because
> > of their central geopolitical location (there are
> > important extraterritorial agents, but they are also
> > regionally situated.)  And it is far from clear to
> > me
> > that movements centered in China and India (or any
> > other country that can help it) will be willing to
> > cede their sovereignty to any global entity (unless
> > such sovereignty is institutionalized in a way which
> > allows them to excercise hegemony in their own
> > right).
> >
> >
> > Since Chase-Dunn has been invoked, I should note
> > that
> > he (and Thomas Hall) explicitly disagree with Warren
> > Wagar's focus on instituting a centralized global
> > state
> > in the breach left by the collapse of the current
> > system, and leaving the setting up of decentralized
> > structures until later.  They see this strategy as
> > neither practicable nor desireable.  While some sort
> > of global structure will probably be necessary, any
> > move in this regard will have to be accompanied by
> > decentralization, precisely because no state, no
> > matter how benign, will tolerate treason, and
> > because
> > the definition of treason will probably be quite
> > fluid
> > in the revolutionary conditions Warren Wagar
> > describes.  I have little faith in such a state
> > "withering away" on its own (even given some measure
> > of success), because the study of world-empires
> > (admittedly very flimsy to date) suggests that such
> > structures can be very long-lived.  In fact,
> > continued
> > improvements in computer and genetic technology will
> > probably increase its longevity.  Conversely,
> > renewed
> > revolutions to remove corrupt post-revolutionary
> > elites will continue to threaten the planet with
> > physical destruction.  It is quite likely that the
> > dangers of a world-state (with or without democratic
> > pretentions) will outweigh its benefits.
> >
> > However long the current transition takes, it seems
> > to
> > me unwise to focus all energies on a particular
> > temporality and a particular blue-print of what we
> > "all" want the world to look like.  Warren Wagar has
> > for many years stressed the "will to agree".  It is
> > at
> > least equally as important to outline the far more
> > numerous areas in which we can agree to disagree
> > without blowing each other to bits (in other words,
> > to
> > parcelling out, rather than absolutizing,
> > sovereignty).  Part of utopistics will be centered
> > around the construction of institutions which will
> > allow us to manage such disagreements in the most
> > democratic way possible.
> >
> > > I ask:
> > >
> > > Any suggestions as to where the "well integrated
> > > planet-wide movement of progressive forces" would
> > be
> > > headquartered?
> >
> >     Thanks to the wonders of the electronic era, it
> > would not have to be
> > headquartered anywhere.  I think Chris Chase-Dunn is
> > probably correct in
> > his feeling that the chief initiative would be taken
> > by various people in the
> > semiperipheral countries, but to be successful it
> > would need extensive
> > support from many inhabitants of core and peripheral
> > countries as well.
> >
> > > Of what groups/individuals will the
> > > organizational center/vanguard be composed?
> >
> >     We all know the Braudelian phrase "la longue
> > duree."  The duration of
> > the modern world-system is not knowable, but I fear
> > that it will persist for
> > several more decades, at the very least.  Perhaps
> > even
> > for a century or two,
> > if the already well-stretched natural resources of
> > our
> > planet allow.
> > Speculation about the composition of the
> > "center/vanguard" is futile.  I am
> > only reasonably sure that there will be a
> > "center/vanguard."  Hundreds of
> > millions of people cannot talk and listen to one
> > another simultaneously.  A
> > few people here and there have to acquire the
> > respect
> > and confidence of the
> > rest to build a consensus and coordinate action.
> >
> > > How shall
> > > it be funded, given the unicameral set-up of the
> > world
> > > government (considering the richer countries are
> > > unlikely to be interested)?  Relatedly, how will
> > the
> > > UN be made into democratic world-government,
> > > considering that all power resides with the highly
> > > undemocratic Security Council?
> >
> >         I do not see any possibility of funding such
> > a
> > movement or transforming
> > the present-day United Nations into a democratic
> > world-government any time
> > soon.  We can publish all the progressive
> > declarations
> > we like.  The fact
> > remains that the overwhelming majority of human
> > beings
> > at the beginning of
> > the 21st Century think only in terms of the
> > self-interest of given national,
> > ethnic, corporate, and/or religious entities (at
> > best--when they are not
> > thinking still more narrowly in terms of their
> > individual self-interest).
> > The only imaginable circumstance that could prompt
> > large numbers of human
> > beings to forswear these segmental allegiances is
> > the
> > catastrophic breakdown
> > of the world-system itself--chaos bred by war,
> > economic collapse,
> > environmental challenge, whatever.  I am not being
> > cynical.  I think it is
> > perfectly understandable that people cling to the
> > institutions and mores
> > that frame and sustain their daily lives.  The
> > problem
> > is that the modern
> > world-system, despite its short-run virtues, is an
> > inherently unstable and
> > unjust contrivance that will almost certainly
> > self-destruct.  When and if it
> > does, will enough of us be ready to work in concert
> > to
> > replace it?
> >
> > > Assuming this problem
> > > is somehow taken care of, how will such a UN
> > proceed
> > > to "disarm national military establishments and
> > > dispossess corporate oligarchs"?
> > >
> >     "Such a UN" will not proceed.  Only a
> > planet-wide
> > revolution, programmed
> > and timed to seize the initiative in the wake of
> > catastrophe, can create a
> > radically different United Nations with the resolve,
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>