richard k. moore said:
>I for one applaud Christopher's formulation, epecially the precise level of generality - "democratic global commonwealth", for example, allows different structures to be discussed (including but not limited to "world government").
Actually I agree with Warren Wagar on the necessity of a world state.
Following Max Weber, a state is the monopoly of legitimate violence.
that is what is needed to prevent warfare, and warfare among core states
must be prevented. i disagree with those who think that the global
capitalist system has transcended warfare permanently. core wars are
impossible right now because there is only one superpower. but what
about in 20 or 30 years near the end of the current K-wave upswing? If
the US economic hegemony continues to decline the pressure for other
core states to "take up the burden" of policing the world will increase
and they will rearm. disamament does not solve the problem because no
one throws away the recipe.
and a democratic world state would be desirable on other grounds: for
protecting the biosphere, for implementing a global social contract and
etc. the interstate system has long been the main mechanism that has
allowed capital to escape the limitations coming from labor and other
movements that try to collective it. once there is a world state
politics can lead to real reform rather than simply driving capital
elsewhere.
for purposes of global reform and revolution i propose a fusion of the
first, second, third and fourth internationals with the global feminist
movement, the newly globalizing labor movement, the old and new
anti-neo-colonial movement and the environmental movement. if someone
can provide an integrated set of principles and goals that elegantly
puts all this together that would be great. In the absence of that we
can procede on the basis of agreement about certain jobs that need to be
done. those who are truly antisystemic will join up. those who are not
will continue to cultivate their own gardens. this is what all movements
face.
i recognize that this is quite a different approach to central values
and definitions of true antisystemness as propose by Warren Wagar. i
agree with him that we need passion and that the values of secular
humanism need to be reasserted in the postmodern climate of doing your
own thing. but a more pragmatic and Gramscian approach to
counter-hegemonic ideology may be more productive, at least in the short
run.
chris