On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, christopher chase-dunn wrote:
> 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.
I agree, but I would hasten to underscore Arno's recent discussion
of the possibility of global wars between the core and the periphery.
Core wars are imaginable; so are core-periphery wars. The problem with
all futures inquiry thus far has been its over-reliance on the recent
"lessons" of history and its neglect of older "lessons." Just because
core wars are unimaginable in 1997, for example, they will "never"
happen, which of course is a nonsensical non-sequitur, but so great is
the grip of the present on our ahistorical minds that we swallow it.
> > 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.
Oh, yes. Well said.
>
> 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.
Not really so different. Take feminism, for example. Obviously
one of the goals of a Left Enlightenment world movement would be the
permanent emancipation of womankind from the patriarchal sway of mankind.
Any world movement worth its salt would insist on incorporating feminism
into its ideology. All that is needed, and this is a big "all," is to
make sure that feminists realize such emancipation is impossible for the
rank and file of womankind in a capitalist world-economy. All you're
likely to get otherwise is an opportunity for SOME women to exploit a LOT
of men AND women. Feminism would also make no sense in a world reeling
from eco-catastrophes or world wars. My little essay didn't address the
issue, but Chris inspires me to address it now: somehow or other the
so-called antisystemic movements that are not really antisystemic must be
persuaded to see the big picture and BECOME antisystemic. It is not that
their concerns are irrelevant to the goal of building a democratic world
commonwealth, only that they are irrelevant if not concerted with many
other interlocking concerns. So my idea of a World Party is not simply
the idea of a party of people all over the world trying to build a world
state: it is the idea of a movement to bring peace, justice, and freedom
to ALL of us, which certainly includes women, people of color, workers,
gays and Lesbians, Palestinians kicked out of their homeland, Jews and
Hindus and Muslims persecuted because they are Jews, Hindus, and Muslims,
the list is long. I would argue that a cosmopolitan secular humanist
faith is the only spiritual cement that will be able to bind this
coalition into a coherent striking force, but the movement will surely
fail if it does not seek to incorporate every segment of humankind
suffering now or slated to suffer soon because we live in a "civilization"
that more closely resembles a jungle.
> 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
>
Maybe. In the very short run. But we also have to keep our eye
on the long run. Pragmatism is not a faith for the long run. Imagine a
pragmatic Karl Marx. Not difficult. His name is Tony Blair.
Cheers,
Warren