Enjoying Bruce's crucial questions I dare to add some more:
1. What are any real signs of moving towards world socialist state? What can
prevail real geopolitical, geoeconomic, civilizational underlying and current
surface conflicts?
2. Why ecological, demographic and other crises, 'world revolution' will lead
to world socialism, not to confrontation of much more severe versions of
modern regimes? Doesn't history and theory of revolutions' results tell that
initial popular dreams always were crashed and most cynical, demagogic parts
of previous elits win the game? Isn't world socialism a mere chimera non-
worthy for discussion?
3. Even if after terrible disasters some collective force manages to get all
world power and proclaims itself 'socialist' what factors save it from fast
shifting to totalitarian anti-utopia?
4. What really proponents of world socialism mean by 'socialist' besides
'good' or 'humanistic'? What political-economic regime would have a world
socialist state? What would be the destiny of non-state capital, property,
institutions? If they become subordinate to the world state why will not
beaurocracy grasp ALL power and eliminate democracy? If they preserve
current autonomy what will be the difference from capitalism? If just taxes
encrease (as in Sweden model) for global programs realization what
are guarantees against giant corrupcy of giant pyramids of officals?
5. Why nobody of Western scholars say a word of amelioration of international
LEGAL system? (For Russian intelligentsia, so tired from revolutionaty, state
and emperal ideologies, the West is a symbol of idea of Law, legal approach
to social problems, and high art for making coalitions). Why in these
discussions the only voice from Siberia calls for legal approach and rational
coalition-making?
best wishes from Novosibirsk Akademgorodok
(I am already here, but really there is much to lose)
Nikolai Rozov
rozov@cnit.nsu.ru
> Which is the question I posed: how is this party effective enough
> to establish a one-world government in the face of organized opposition
> from the states that will have to be incorporated by force, while at
> the same time it remains open enough to opposition that it simply
> surrenders power in the face of internal democratic opposition? Saying
> that if it qualifies for labelling as socialist, it won't be oppressive,
> is simply evading the question: in those terms, how is this party
> effective enough to establish a one-world government while at the same
> time it is socialist enough to establish a government that can be
> overturned peacefully?
>
> Virtually,
>
> Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
> ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
>
>