Re: 3 models of global (democratic) socialism

At 01:46 PM 2/21/99 -0500, Gernot Kohler wrote:
 
>   I explored the topic a bit more, using the search engine of wsn+ipe, and
>came up with the following semi-rambling thoughts:
>
>(1) wsn and ipe contributors tend to agree that the present world is
>dominated by capitalist elites (global and national).

Well-l-l-l, I wouldn't push this generalization _too_ far.  On the IPE
list, at any rate, there are some conservatives who favor us with their
views.  It's probably true that the modal poster (not necessarily the modal
_post_, however) is at best suspicious of the consequences of economic
globalization.  Many if not most see capitalists as having a privileged
position of some sort.

>(2) offline respondents pointed out that there is a special category of
>global elite -- namely, criminal elites (as in "Russian Mafia", etc.)

If you want a list of such "categories," check out an old article by Mats
Friberg and Bjorn Hettne, cited below:

I: Local mobilization and world system politics
AU: Friberg,-Mats; Hettne,-Bjorn.
SO: International-Social-Science-Journal. v. 40 Aug. '88 p. 341-60

These two authors divide the world into three systems:  the state system,
made up of nation-states; the "second system", presided over by the
capitalist elite  based in multinational corporations; and the "third
system," consisting basically of anti-systemic social movements of various
kinds.  They list a number of movements in this "third system," as I
recall:  the environmentalist movement; "postcolonialists," including
dependency theorists; feminists; the New Age movement, peace activists, etc.

You might also check Hettne's later book _Development Theory and the Three
Worlds_ (Essex, England : Longman Scientific & Technical ; New York, NY :
Copublished in the United States by John Wiley, 1995).

>(3) as the concept of "elite", as seen in wsn and ipe circles, is largely
>synonymous with "bad guys", the social force which could conceivably
>improve the world is not described (in wsn + ipe) as  "counter-elite" but,
>rather, as a    "counter-movement". There are two variants of this notion
>-- namely, (a) "counter-hegemonic movement" (Gramscian) and (b)
>"anti-systemic movement" (non-Gramscian leftist). Here I am wondering: Is
>not the leadership of a counter-movement a "counter-elite"?

It might be a counterelite.  On the other hand, I could imagine a radical
democrat arguing that a "really" democratic anti-systematic or
counter-hegemonic movement, being participatory, has no formal centralized
leadership, 
and thus has no "elite."  Whether or not such a movement ever has or ever
could exist is, of course, a debatable point that I don't want to take up
here.

>(4) What is the prospective role of elites in something that might be
>called "global democratic socialism"? [This is a utopia-oriented question.]
>Here one could, tentatively, claim that there are three broad models of
>"global (democratic) socialism" -- each with a different view of global
>elite. The three models are sharply at odds with each other, due to the
>fact that "democracy" has three distinctly different meanings in each of
>the three models, as follows:

>(5) ANARCHIST MODEL of global democratic socialism. Here "democracy" means
>"no governmental structures". There is no government. There are no elites.
>The world is a system of self-governing workers groups.

I would feel much better applying the world "syndicalist" rather than
"anarchist" to this, given the common understanding of "anarchism".

>(6) DICTATORIAL MODEL of global (democratic) socialism. Here "democracy"
>means "dictatorship in the name of the proletariat". There is a global
>government. There is a dictatorial elite. "Democracy" is  here the same as
>dictatorship a la Lenin or Castro.
>(7) HUMAN RIGHTS MODEL of global democratic socialism. Here "democracy"
>means a process and global governance in the spirit of the Universal
>Declaration on Human Rights. There are global elites who promote human
>rights, including political rights (liberties), economic human rights (good
>standard of living for all) and ecological sustainability. This model has
>also been called "humane governance", in opposition to the present
>"inhumane (global) governance" (e.g., Richard Falk, On Humane Governance,
>1995).
>(8) In conclusion: Did I miss any important model of global democratic
>socialism? Finally, it appears that the (leftist) "world(-)system(s)"
>movement cannot be a unified movement since there are at least three
>sharply differing (leftist) utopias for the world(-)system, roughly along
>the mind grooves of the traditional anarchist/menshevik/bolshevik split.
>

How about a radical democratic alternative?  Your "human rights model," as
you describe it, might not necessarily be "democratic" in the sense of
maximizing direct participation by the masses.  It could take the form of a
global social democratic "welfare state" given your description.  

On the subject of radical democracy in general, see Benjamin R. Barber's 
Strong democracy : participatory politics for a new age.  (Berkeley :
University of California Press, 1984).  For Barber's thoughts on the
implications of globalization for "democracy", see his Jihad vs. McWorld
(New York : Times Books, 1995).