Andrew - I very much appreciate your taking the time to respond to my
posting. It is unfortunate that you apparently misunderstood every one of
my points. Is my writing really that unclear?
Firstly, just to clarify one point, when I say "enlightened" government I
refer (I hope) to what Warren Wagnar dubs "democratic and socialist" and
which, I presume we all agree, is only a shorthand for "human-needs
centered, democratically responsive, non-authoritarian, freedom-supporting,
ecologically aware, economically savvy, minority-respecting" etc.
Warren suggests that enlightened world government is not only a goal worth
pursuing, but is in fact the only hope for human salavation.
My main point is simply: _IF_ englightened world government might be
achievable by WHATEVER MEANS, _THEN_ one might assume that enlightened
national governments would also be achievable by the SAME MEANS, and should
therefore be entertained as an alternative system-design strategy.
10/04/97, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
>Richard K. Moore wrote several things:
>
>> The vision is that an enlightened global state _somehow_ comes into
>> existence, _somehow_ remains stable forever, _somehow_ is never subverted
>> by special interests, and _somehow_ always adapts benignly and successfully
>> to changing conditions.
>
>Putting aside for now my problems with Warren's argument, where is Moore
>getting these assumptions?
If one advocates a world government, then all of the above assumptions
(whether or not you're aware of them in advance) must be fulfilled if the
situtation is not to degenerate into some new variety of global domination
by elites.
>Does stating that a world government is
>necessary for the reasons Warren enumerated automatically imply such
>ridiculous claims?
Why, Andrew, are they ridiculous? - please explain which can be abandoned
without endangering our "democratic and socialist" regime? As I see it,
they are simply the necessary conditions for system stability.
>Maintaining a global democratic order, just like
>maintaining a democratic order of any scale, will be a formidable task,
>sure. But it doesn't mean that we don't advocate one, or try to make one
>happen. ... this is no reason not to try.
Hey! I'm with you here. Peace! The heroic effort IS worth pursuing (or
at least emailing about). What I'm suggesting is that we be a little more
open in the alternatives we consider. "World Government" is a
quick-and-easy knee-jerk "first response" to solve world problems - let's
please take the time to discuss the pro's and con's of different
approaches. Then choose intelligently. I believe "enlightened sovereign
states" can give a good running - just as I believe Europe is better off
pre-Maastricht. Do you see a federalized EU as an improvement?
>Perhaps the "historical record" agrees with Richard (facts speaking for
>themselves?), but until these arguments are put into some sort of cogent
>form how do we know?
Are my arguments that in-cogent? Have you really grokked what I'm saying?
I hope the above clarifications have some impact on your responses.
>> (1) As regards stability - monoculture is inherently maladaptive; it is
>> inferior to diversity. Just as the single-strain Irish potato crop all
>> failed at once from a single blight, so would a single world government be
>> all-at-once vulnerable to a special-interest takeover or to any other
>> serious system perturbation (natural, economic, or political).
>
>How do we get from world government to monoculture? Why would a world
>democratic order automatically reduce all culture to a singularity? More
>importantly, perhaps, why is monoculture inherently maladaptive? Is this
>based on theory of natural selection mapped onto the social world?
Sorry the metaphor didn't work for you. In ecosystems it is well known
that a variety of species, with overlapping habitats and food sources, is
better prepared to deal with changing conditions than a mono-culture such
as an avacado grove. My point was that a single global administration
might not always succeed in adapting to changing conditions - I was not
implying that there would necessarily be a single global social culture
(you took the world "culture" too literally).
The "maladaptivity of monoculture" isn't about Darwinism, but about system
response-flexibility. A multi-autonomous system can respond more
creatively and flexibly than a centralized hierarchical system. Right?
"Two head are better than one", "Team functioning is synergistic", etc.
>Sounds rather Spencerian to me:
Thank you so much for only including only this one reference to the revered
literature.
>"Keep world government out of natural cultural
>diversity so that the process of macrosociocultural adaptation can proceed
>unadulterated by the hand of conscientious women and men."
No, I'm not any kind of system determinist. Systems can support or subvert
goals - and they must threfore be designed carefully - but the "hand of
conscientious women and men" must always be at the helm ("Eternal vigilance
is the price of liberty").
>Using the potato
>famine as an analogy for the perils of world government is just about the
>worst analogy I have yet to hear.
Why? A mono-political-hierarhical system, if undermined, undermines the
whole world at once. With a variety of global centers, one might hope that
an undermining-agent, of whatever character, might be resisted successfully
in some places, and that the antibody-pattern could then be replicated
(consciously and conscientiously) everywhere else.
>Why reify states, Richard, and then have them rule (to hope for the
>enlightened rule of states smacks of the silliness that Richard attributes
>to Warren's argument) over the world's population?
To answer the parenthetical remark first, you're absolutely right - hoping
for the "enlightened rule of states" is PRECISELY as utopian as hoping for
Warren's enlightened world government. No argument here - both may be
hopeless. But as Alan Kay (a famous computer guy) says or quotes: "A great
project is no more difficult than a good project" - let's go for the _best_
world system, not just the most obvious one.
I reify states for several reasons. (1) they already exist and in the West
include workable (if underused) democratic mechanisms - to not exploit the
potential of this infrastructure while we still have it is idiotic; (2) I
believe democracy is more sustainable at smaller scales (but that
pre-mature national devolution is counterproductive); (3) the cultural and
economic fabric of nation states, such as remains, is worth preserving.
>As Zinn pointed out,
>Kissinger's argument that history is the memory of states hides the fact
>that there are no such things as "national interests" or "enlightened
>states." Ironically, under Richard's alternative scenario we may well have
>a totalitarian world order constituted by the mutual cooperation of
>totalitarian states (which is sort of what we have and the framework that
>Richard says we should operate within).
You're getting unnecessarily nasty here Andrew. Are you trying to imply
I'm in favor of totalitarian states, or what? I admit that a nation-state
system might fail just as a world-system might also fail - I only ask that
we consider the pro's and con's of each approach - ASSUMING that either
"enlightened regime" might be achievable in the first place.
I'd say some states have been more enlightened than others - there are some
useful democratic & socialist precedents. "National interests" may have
been an arbitrary invention of the enlightenment, and they may have been
often abused, but to say there is "no such thing" is absurd - and one must
assume Zinn was speaking within some particular context. Nationalism has
been a real and an effective focus of economic development and social
progress, we needn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>If it is difficult to imagine a global democratic
>government acting reasonably (I shutter anthropomorphizing such an entity
>in that manner) then how in the hell may we even begin to imagine hundreds
>of "sovereign states" coming to enlightened rule simultaneously and then
>cooperating for the good of all people?
I didn't say "simultaneously". I believe we need to start with what we
have, which is the democratic institutions in our nations. Progress would
presumably start somewhere first, and success would inspire emulation.
Even if the goal is world government, I'd think this would be the best way
to start. (Again - barring the "apocalypse solution").
Please consider the current situation among major Western countries. In
the postwar era, barring perhaps the Suez crisis, we really have achieved a
situation of "sovereign states" "cooperating for the good" in some sense.
Even before modern globalization, and with a relatively ineffective UN, we
haven't had competitive Western arms races, serious border disputes,
competitive imperialism, serious trade wars, etc. It is no longer utopian
to imagine sovereign states cooperating effectively and peacefully without
global hierarchical control. Is it too much to hope that such cooperation
might continue if the governments themselves had more enlightened goals?
>I agree that we should struggle in our
>respective nation-states, but how is it that with democracy being
>dismantled, as you claim, and at the same time there is a world capitalist
>state emerging, a point which I have seen you argue on this list, that
>national struggle is the "only productive focus of _primary_ effort"? This
>conclusion doesn't seem to flow from the position you have advanced so
>frequently on this channel. From all your extensive analysis of the
>transnationalization of capital and the erosion of the nation-state,
>Richard, how do you come up with this conclusion?
.... one step at a time, Andrew.
Democracy _is being_ dismantled, which gives rise to the urgency of our
situation. It is _not yet_ dismantled, which gives rise to hope. The
world-capitalist-state is emerging largely by means of the undermining of
national sovereignty. The "taking back" of our on-paper democratic states
- based on principles of restored national sovereignty and "democratic
socialism" - could be used to undo the world-capitalist-state and to pursue
a better vision of a global system.
That better system _might_ be a world government - but it might better be a
looser federation. Isn't this worth discussing with similar
sympathy/indulgence shown to all options? I argue against a hierarchical
world government but I don't dismiss it as brain-dead.
>I am having trouble imagining an "enlightened West." Is your alternative
>scenario dependent on this possibility?
Yes indeed. And wouldn't an "enlightened West" also be necessary if we
were to achieve an elightened world government? It seems to me I'm hoping
for only a portion of what Warren's hoping for.
>The assumption is that operating social
>laws are symmetrical. It is not usually the case in the real world that
>the removal of the stimulus returns the effected object back to its
>previous state.
To be sure. Viable local ecosystems/economies have been wrenched out of
shape by centuries of imperialism. Nonetheless, returning land now used
for export coffee and MacDonald's beef to local agricultural use, and
cancelling of Third World debts, wouldn't be a bad starting point for
whatever other economic/resource adjustments need to be made.
>I also question the degree to which imperialism is the
>predominant form of maintaining exploitation in the present global system
>that is assumed in this argument. Rather capitalist hegemony has come to
>predominate as a method of domination and exploitation over core
>political and military domination.
Many models are true at once - don't be over-reductionist. Yes there is a
capitalist-cloning missionary aspect to global control, but there is at the
same time a US-NATO military regime that intervenes and bullies under one
banner or another in traditional imperialist fashion. As I've argued
before: "National competitive Euro imperialism has been replaced by
collaborative Euro imperialism". All nations may be equal in the the face
of international globalism, but some (US-Euro axis) are more equal than
others.
>> If you want to live in the desert, you'd better know how to get by with
>> what's available there, or what you can trade for.
Well yes, you can easily ridicule this statement if you choose to
exaggerate its intent, but what is your attitude toward:
"equitable distribution of wealth and natural resources among the
world's peoples"?
What does this mean? Does it mean the US Midwest is obliged to produce
wheat for Africa? I'd like to see the idea more fully articulated but on
the surface it seems a dubious goal - unnecessary and possibly
counter-productive. Why is it necessary? Wouldn't it require centralized
planning of global resource allocations? Might this not repeat the
failures of previous attempts at centralized command economies?
rkm