Re: Utopia and World Party

R.J. Barendse-

There seems to be an interesting phenomenon in this discussion.

Those proposing global visions such as global keynesianism, global
social security, global action per se versus nation/state-based action,
employ a form of discourse pitting their "realism" versus the "nostalgic,"
"utopian," or just plain defeated visions of nationalism, leninism, or
some such spectre.

IMHO it is the "globalists" who are in fact, despite their reasonable
tone, as if they were proposing a program of strolling down to the New
England town meeting and voting in direct democratic form, totally out of
touch with reality.

The world *I* see is one in which the trend is in the opposite direction
from any sort of global progressivism, and one in which there are no
institutional structures within which to peacefully, democratically and
in a guaranteed-to-offend-noone fashion proceed to implement such
excellent sounding proposals.  Welfare states are everywhere under attack,
and losing -- how are we going to now build a *global* welfare state?

Therefore, the maligned old-fashioned types on this list, despite their
rigidity, may in the main simply be a case of "some things never go out of
fashion," like wearing black.  Or to use another metaphor, they may be the
ones with their eye on the ball while others are dazzled by
"GLOBALIZATION!" and so think that states don't matter any more.

One more point, and that is to be clear on the difference between
blueprints and plans.  Blueprints for global keynesianism and social
security and so forth are fine, but you need a plan for how to implement
them!  It is on that level that the proposal for a world party enters the
stage -- it is an attempt to address the "how?" necessary to achieve all
of our splendid goals, good old Vladimir's "what is to be done?"

RH