10/10/97, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
>
> enlightened enlightened
> world-government national governments
> ------------------ ---------------------
>
> difficulty of very difficult; very difficult;
> obtaining not impossible not impossible
>
> plan to obtain world socialist compromise and
> revolution capitulation
>
> long-term movement towards "enlightened states"
> prospects global democracy subverted by logic of
> global capitalism
>
Thank you, Austin, for responding in such dialog-encouraging terms.
I cannot envision your "world socialist revolution". Where would it start?
If it starts in the periphery, why wouldn't it be successfully suppressed
through standard neocolonial measures? If it starts in the core, why
would it not exhibit itself first as the "enlightened national governments"
I argue for?
And why would "enlightened national governments" necessarily involve
"compromise and capitulation"? Why can that be avoided on a world scale
but not on a national scale?
It seems obvious to me (and I invite rebuttal) that if the core is opposed
to socialist revolution then it won't happen. Similarly, if the core is
reformed along revolutionary socialist lines (including the cessation of
capitalist-driven neocolonialism), then the periphery would inevitably
follow.
In fact I also favor "world socialist revolution", but I think it can only
be achieved by starting with socialist democratic revolution in core
states.
Once achieved, the question is then what administrative form is most stable
over time. I've argued that a single centralized administration would
suffer from intrinsic instabilities and suspectibiity to subversion - and I
believe no one has tried to rebut this.
rkm