I question the optimism regarding how responsive the mechanical
90% of the world system is. If it were purely a question of changing
personnel at the helm, we should be optimistic about electoral mechanisms.
What about bureaucratic resistance every step of the way from mid-level
technocrats whose whole socialisation--to say nothing of their economic
interests--would predispose them against any radical transformation? It
seems there would have to be a radical displacement of the entire
structure AS A STRUCTURE, subsequently allowing cooperative individuals
back into the administrative system only AS INDIVIDUALS. Granted, there
are some transitional considerations about initially using existing
administrative chains of command for maintaining basic order, but
presumably that would last a few expedient weeks at most until other
temporary structures were in place. Furthermore, destabilising the system
and creating chaos very well could be in the interests of revolution,
insofar as people would welcome the return of order. It is all a matter
of who receives blame and credit. Do things not need to be irretrievably
broken before they can be made genuinely new? Finally and fortunately, I
can imagine no scenario, other than a nuclear war, which would break the
system down everywhere simultaneously; the staged character of any
uprising on that scale--eg. Southern insurgency followed by Northern
collapse--would have a clear replacement of old by new while still
minimising total, simultaneous breakdown beyond the point of convenience.
Regards,
--AKW
===============================================================================
Adam K. Webb
Department of Politics
Princeton University
Princeton NJ 08544 USA
609-258-9028
http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb