Possibilities (Was Re: McFarling on Wagar)

Mon, 29 Jul 1996 12:42:22 -0500 (CDT)
Andrew W. Austin (aaustin@mtsu.edu)

Christopher,

I appreciate the pragmatism in your position. I agree with what you have
written here. I believe that democratic structures should be global, and
that people all around the world should work together to build as much
consensus as possible regarding how they will conduct their lives in a
global world-system. Coordination is important in such a world-system, and
democratic structuring (and these forms can vary) is the best way to
proceed.

When I say that socialist democracy, when correctly structured, would have
no centralized state, this assertion is in no way contrary to anything you
have said here. Moreover, a coordinated democratic world-system could very
well have member cultures whose political economic systems vary
considerably. When I say they would be classless and stateless I mean
first that the reclamation of the productive means, land, and resources by
the producers in society eliminates social class (although this does not
necessarily mean social stratification will cease to exist) and that a
context where producers democratically control the productive forces would
not necessarily require a state.

As for the notion that "we can't get there from here," I am not a
determinist. Historic levels of productive foundation and capacity do set
up further social transformation. And certain technical and epistemic
elements must be in place before the next technological/ideational leap
can manifest. But, in the final analysis, social forms are constructed by
humans and, therefore, can be changed by humans. We currently enjoy the
productive capacity to move onto the level of global socialism (of course,
alterations in distribution of social wealth would have to take place). I
see nothing preventing this from becoming a reality, except a well-
entrenched global ruling elite who control the means of ideological
production and the planetary military capability.

One final note. In a discussion this general, where we are mapping ideal
types onto a global context, particularly in a conflict-systems paradigm,
delineations will always retain a character of idealism. We are operating
here at the most general level of abstraction.

Andy