Re: 3 models of global (democratic) socialism

Gernot, this is becoming an interesting thread.

>(1) wsn and ipe contributors tend to agree that the present world is
>dominated by capitalist elites (global and national).

I at least certainly do. i regard pluralistic views of our society as a bit
childish. It is a bit hard to deny the rampant inequality in our world,
isn't it?


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

the worst is that what we describe as the civilized parts of our elites
(politicians, business leaders, and all their followers i.e. scientist,
journalists etc.) represent a system based on exploitation, violence, and
frustration of the masses. the marginal exponents that deal illegal arms or
drugs, are not as powerful as the legal and respectable arms-conglomerates
or tobacco pushers.

>(3) as the concept of "elite", as seen in wsn and ipe circles, is largely
synonymous with "bad guys",

well, it is a fact that the powers that be are dark and mean. but that
doesn't mean (for me at least) that a hierarchy is a bad thing. let the
visionaries lead, and let the meek follow, no problem. leadership is a
natural thing. exploitative or destructive leadership, however, is a human
invention.

> 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"?



there is a big difference between wanting to take over power to have it for
you, but with the same aims as your predecessor (for example: one war-lord
pushing aside the other) and presenting a real alternative (for example: all
the popular revolts in history).

>(4) What is the prospective role of elites in something that might be
>called "global democratic socialism"? [This is a utopia-oriented question.]

for me it is clear: realy visionary, regulating, maximizing, rewarding and
enriching leadership in the interest of all.


c.