"And now for a world government" - Financial Times

[bluestreak]

Yup, we will.

 

[frogwoman]

what butchers and dillinger said.

 

[elbows]

There is some order in the world, it has been relatively stable since the end of world war 2, it is out of date, it is going to get reformed, the financial crisis will be a catalyst for this.

Some weeks ago the G20 met, this is a sign that some countries who have gained power, resources & wealth in recent decades, are going to be allowed to sit round the table in a more prominent role.

I would rather have a world government than a world war, but it isnt likely to be very democratic. Im not a fan of globalisation, although it does have a few positive attributes. Some problems require global cooperation, eg peak oil & climate change, the alternative is failure or war. I suspect that when is is said and done, the future will be extremely local, but with a few global aspects remaining.

Paranoia about world government is high amongst those in the USA who do not like the fed, let alone anything larger. This is slightly ironic because the closest thing we presently have to a world government, involves global institutions which the USA has dominated for more than 60 years. Some people are anti world government because they are nationalistic, and I dont like those people. I am interested in fairness for humanity as a whole, so there are all sorts of global things which appeal to me, its just that in practice its likely to be either undemocratic or ineffective. Still, I would rather have a world with a UN then one without, and I welcome any changes to the systems that already exist, that would give some countries more say. The power setup from the end of world war 2 is out of date and unsustainable.

 

[elbows]

Also I believe that it is just as likely that global co-operation on many levels will fall apart, and we will end up fighting, as it is we end up with much stronger global institutions. The economic crisis, climate change & peak of various resources, is certainly going to cause big change, and there is much opportunity for it to go horribly wrong.

I appeal for all those who spend time in fear or rant about the NWO and global government, to spend more time talking about what they do want to see happen, on what level they do want the world to co-operate. Some of your fears are probably valid, but what will those fears sponsor?

 

[peacepete]

I just want to join in with those saying that a global government sort of misses the point. I'm going to struggle with some of the terminology, but I'm going to do my best...

Political control/judicial power/policing is already exercised around the world in a relatively coherent fashion. Riot police around the world not only carry the same equipment (probably manufactured in the same factories), they also operate broadly following a similar ideological and political framework. The same is true of the procedures of the various 'democratic' institutions, the laws which govern businesses, the manner in which culture is consumed and the cultural content itself. Broadly speaking there has been a mass homogenisation of the hegemonic power structures, ideological and physical.

The result is a framework within which it is possible to establish a global social order. The extent to which this has been achieved is hard to quantify as there is nothing to compare it to. The closest we could do is compare this modern social order to previous historical empires, but I'm not sure a theoretical framework exists to really tackle this question. Basically there is a drive towards a global social order and it's not so surprising that there should be one. It doesn't for example have to originate from an 'elite' of individuals conspiring towards this. Many institutions as well as individuals have an interest in establishing social order, both ostensibly egalitarian ones and explicitly hierarchical ones.

Social order, being a discontinuous variable is something that a number of different agents might strive towards simultaneously without necessarily conspiring. Think for example of the ease in which capitalist institutions have been able to establish themselves in previously communist states. The path having been laid for them already as long as they are able to understand the local conventions (think of those HSBC adverts - they understand the local conventions and how they can be integrated into your business model!).


In a way to assume that the process of social ordering is obviously the work of some tyrannical genius, meeting up in posh hotels is like the Intelligent Design argument in Biology. Also, one of the most successful social ordering projects of all time, namely global patriarchy, did not require any active conspiracy of all males!

What has undoubtedly occurred over recent years is bolder attempts at social ordering with a global scope. This is what our global conspiracy theorists have noticed. This could be emerging for any number of reasons and its probable that we will never know why, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't or can't resist.

Anyway, there is a global social order (to an extent), it can be mapped out in terms of oil pipelines and life-expectancies, a systematisation of consumption drawing resources from a periphery to a core.

This has not occurred through the constitution of a government, which admittedly would have made it more obvious, however it has certainly not been subtle. A huge number of wars have been fought over the past 60 (+?) years in the pursuit of the interests of a super-rich transnational minority. It is hard to see how a genuinely constituted global government could assist this process, though global governmental institutions, such as the WTO, IMF, World Bank and UN, undoubtedly do.

So, something like that...

 

[elbows]

I am liking the words of peacepete, that was a great post, very well put.

 

[Dillinger4]

That is a fantastic post, peacepete.

 

[Dr Jon]

What was predicted - that someone will write an article in the FT at some point?

No, I thought world government was the topic of this thread?

 

[camouflage]

I just want to join in with those saying that a global government sort of misses the point. I'm going to struggle with some of the terminology, but I'm going to do my best...

Political control/judicial power/policing is already exercised around the world in a relatively coherent fashion. Riot police around the world not only carry the same equipment (probably manufactured in the same factories), they also operate broadly following a similar ideological and political framework. The same is true of the procedures of the various 'democratic' institutions, the laws which govern businesses, the manner in which culture is consumed and the cultural content itself. Broadly speaking there has been a mass homogenisation of the hegemonic power structures, ideological and physical.

The result is a framework within which it is possible to establish a global social order. The extent to which this has been achieved is hard to quantify as there is nothing to compare it to. The closest we could do is compare this modern social order to previous historical empires, but I'm not sure a theoretical framework exists to really tackle this question. Basically there is a drive towards a global social order and it's not so surprising that there should be one. It doesn't for example have to originate from an 'elite' of individuals conspiring towards this. Many institutions as well as individuals have an interest in establishing social order, both ostensibly egalitarian ones and explicitly hierarchical ones.

Social order, being a discontinuous variable is something that a number of different agents might strive towards simultaneously without necessarily conspiring. Think for example of the ease in which capitalist institutions have been able to establish themselves in previously communist states. The path having been laid for them already as long as they are able to understand the local conventions (think of those HSBC adverts - they understand the local conventions and how they can be integrated into your business model!).


In a way to assume that the process of social ordering is obviously the work of some tyrannical genius, meeting up in posh hotels is like the Intelligent Design argument in Biology. Also, one of the most successful social ordering projects of all time, namely global patriarchy, did not require any active conspiracy of all males!

What has undoubtedly occurred over recent years is bolder attempts at social ordering with a global scope. This is what our global conspiracy theorists have noticed. This could be emerging for any number of reasons and its probable that we will never know why, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't or can't resist.

Anyway, there is a global social order (to an extent), it can be mapped out in terms of oil pipelines and life-expectancies, a systematisation of consumption drawing resources from a periphery to a core.

This has not occurred through the constitution of a government, which admittedly would have made it more obvious, however it has certainly not been subtle. A huge number of wars have been fought over the past 60 (+?) years in the pursuit of the interests of a super-rich transnational minority. It is hard to see how a genuinely constituted global government could assist this process, though global governmental institutions, such as the WTO, IMF, World Bank and UN, undoubtedly do.

So, something like that...

Yeah, I agree.

And I like your comparison to intelligent design, I've alswasy felt the world is far too complex a thing for any shady cabal of megalomaniacs to bring under their control. The process is far more an evolution of generations of power-seeking behaviour tending towards world wide syncronisation. Like how (as lbj explained) an 'anarcho-capitalist' society would inevitably collapse into a hierarchy. At the same time human beings want broadly the same things across the globe, it's not just power-seeking behaviour that gets to synchronize afterall.

 

[kyser_soze]

The other point worth thinking about is that, along with the 'world government' would come, eventually, the Final Corporation, the global monopoly that is the final stage of Capitalism, having absorbed pretty much everything into itself, becoming the sole economic and political point on the planet...which is when the revolution actually works when it happens...

 

[butchersapron]

One of the times when ideas alike this were most popular was in the decade before WW1 when there was people from all across the political spectrum arguing that financial capital had meged with industrial capital and the result had fused with the state, leaving the states to put together a form of global governance that would benefit them all without war or severe disruption ('ultra-imperialism') - two World wars, one cold war, hundreds of civil wars, hiroshima, nagaski, the holocuast(s) and 200 million deaths later i think it's safe to say that they were wrong. And guess which theory is coming back in popularity today - yep, that's right 'ultra-imperialism'.

 

[kyser_soze]

Thing is, someone with taffboys POV would argue that's what's happened, and that all the wars etc were in fact controlled events subtly guided by such 'ultra imperialists' for their own ultimate benefit (or of course that they were the results of disagreements between said ultra-imperialists as to the overall direction that capital should take).

It's kind of like 'When Marxists Go Bad' - I can see where someone who's got Marx could go awry and end up in conspiracy territory, cos the overall Marxist narrative - that of a small elite controlling all social institutions for their own benefit - has that 'feel' about it, IYSWIM. It just doesn't bear out in practice...

 

[butchersapron]

The idea isn't that they control world wars, but that world wars (or regional power wars, or resource wars etc) will no longer happen - that contemporary capitalism is not tieed to violence, domination, exploitation, military spending or so on. A more dangerous piece of nonsense in todays world would be hard to find.

 

[kyser_soze]

What a load of cock. R/C of any type, capitalist or not, need war either as distraction or fear-provider (the war you can't see). What rot.

 

[butchersapron]

Exactly, and this was an idea birthed in the years of WW1, (which shows how on the money it was) and that is the father to a lot of international analysis today (and misreadings of that idea being the father of a great deal of the more sophisticated sounding conspiracy theory - the shit that thinks it deals with geopolitics).

 

[Belushi]

'When Marxists Go Bad'

You really should pitch that as a documentary series to the Hisotry Channel

 

[kyser_soze]

Never miss a chance for cheap populism in a post I always say...

 

[camouflage]

The other point worth thinking about is that, along with the 'world government' would come, eventually, the Final Corporation, the global monopoly that is the final stage of Capitalism, having absorbed pretty much everything into itself, becoming the sole economic and political point on the planet...which is when the revolution actually works when it happens...

Odd, doesn't sound like the standard of stuff you usually come out with...

 

[kyser_soze]

I am a mirror with many faces mate...I like the cut and thrust, and firmly believe that arguing stuff you don't believe in sharpens your own arguments, enables you to empathise and understand your enemy and thus ultimately defeat them. Alos, I like to keep people guessing...

As you might have guessed, I'm a big fan of Sun Tsu and Machiavelli

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Thing is, someone with taffboys POV would argue that's what's happened, and that all the wars etc were in fact controlled events subtly guided by such 'ultra imperialists' for their own ultimate benefit (or of course that they were the results of disagreements between said ultra-imperialists as to the overall direction that capital should take).

I think thats attributing opinions to me without very much evidence. Having said that - I think it's plausible and I know its a fave among conspiracists but I really havent looked into it enough to say.

The empasse, almost contradiction on this thread (and I know Im repeating myself) is that there is a near consensus that it's the nature of the ruling class to consolidate power and rig things, but for various reasons they wouldnt institute "world government" although it almost exists de facto.

Its very possible such an elite wouldnt say "hello we are your world government" because the idea would be as popular with many global citizens as herpes.

However, we have an EU which makes most of our laws and is on the verge of giving a president (who isnt a president) and a constitution (which isnt a constitution) without our consent or input. Once world regions are consolidated through NAFTA / NAU, the African Union and Asia Pacific it should be easier again for the likes of CFR and the Trilateral Commission to direct things.

This isnt to say there wont be opposition (some Russian and Japanese elites I would anticipate) or factions within the ruling class, but the goal is pretty clear and I think it goes above and beyond the de facto world government that people here already accept exists.

A major feature of current financial re-ordering is putting control of even more assets in the hands of the banks who fucked things up. These banks are global institutions and control literally trillions of money that people like the US taxpayers will pay for for generations.

Global financial and political institutions are openly consolidating power. This is anti-democratic and no time for complacency. I'd like to thank posters for a very thought provoking thread so far which has not strayed into "tin foil hat" accusations and recriminations.

Butchers

I said the "governance" doublespeak was key because it is a word that comes up a lot in terms of international development. What it basically means is that those countries should do things our way. Perhaps with some democratic accountability, but most importantly toeing the neoliberal line and submitting to the bankers.

 

[kyser_soze]

Because the 'evidence' you're citing simply isn't there. The kind of global consolidation you're talking about isn't happening - BRIC, US-EU, ASEAN/APAC - all of these blocs have geopolitical goals that overlap and clash, meaning the kind of unitary world govt you're talking about simply won't happen.

One corporatist EU official saying something in the FT does not equal a NWO!

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Because the 'evidence' you're citing simply isn't there. The kind of global consolidation you're talking about isn't happening - BRIC, US-EU, ASEAN/APAC - all of these blocs have geopolitical goals that overlap and clash, meaning the kind of unitary world govt you're talking about simply won't happen.

One corporatist EU official saying something in the FT does not equal a NWO!

If the same elite power group can have the right placemen (its usually men) that can smooth out some of the inevitable clashes you cite.

One coporatist EU official doesnt equal NWO, but it does show us a mindset. We know the EU and the like are increasingly coporatist and not really afraid to say so. And we also know Il Duce had another word for corporatism.

 

[butchersapron]

You think it's a possibilty that the World wars were deliberately started as a conspiracy by elites? (The holocaust too then?)To what end? And if they can already do such monsterous things that why the hell do they neeed 'a world govt' - they've already got the power to do what they want if that's true.

I think it's pretty simple and straightforward myself - the capitalists constitute (in marx's term) "a band of hostile brothers" all having the same end (increased accumulation) which brings them into conflict with each other at certain times, but the working class at all times. So they attempt to organise these conflicts to their own benefit - in the past the "dull compulsion of economic forces" was enough, sometimes they needed extra-economic compulsion, and sometimes they've tried to construct a sort of superstructure - the EU as an example through the Stability growth pact and parts of the Lisbon treaty writes ecomomic neo-liberalism into it's very structure.

The danger is in ignoring the inter-capitalist competition component and only seeing the capital/labour axis - that way you easily fall into the trap of turning regional blocs based on increased competition into avatars of world govt as all capitalists have the same interests at the same time right? You're missing half of the picture if you do that, and it's the half that is most directly concerned with what you're supposed to be talking about. It's that same discredited ultra-imperialism i was talking about earlier, just dressed up differently.

 

[Barking_Mad]

The other point worth thinking about is that, along with the 'world government' would come, eventually, the Final Corporation, the global monopoly that is the final stage of Capitalism, having absorbed pretty much everything into itself, becoming the sole economic and political point on the planet...which is when the revolution actually works when it happens...

A sort of inverted Communism. Ironic in a way.

 

[kyser_soze]

IIRC the guy who said that was actually an early monetarist; the same guy coined the term 'tornado economy' to describe the destructive, rapid and irrational behaviour of new technology markets. I found his name about 6 months ago, in stoned haze, and hence have forgotten it...again...German dude, made the comments in the 1930s...

 

[butchersapron]

A sort of inverted Communism. Ironic in a way.

This was described by Marx as "the communism of capital" 70 years before the 1930s. It was a bog standard idea amongst the 2nd international theorists from the late 19th century onwards.

 

[Barking_Mad]

This was described by Marx as "the communism of capital" 70 years before the 1930s. It was a bog standard idea amongst the 2nd international theorists from the late 19th century onwards.

And a fine piece of observation.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

You think it's a possibilty that the World wars were deliberately started as a conspiracy by elites?

I know the bankers profitted from both sides. Always do. War is a racket as General Smedley Butler said.

I expect Hitler was a case of someone who got "out of hand", but anyone who looks at the history will know that he was admired by many in the west before it got to that.

Do elites say "let's fix a war here or there"? I expect so. Was WW2 one of them? doubtful overall.

 

[butchersapron]

And a fine piece of observation.

It was also, and this will probably not be a suprise to hear, one of the foundations of the theory of ultra-imperialism that i was talking about earlier. It was also used by the revisionists to suggest that a peaceful takevoer of the economy was easily possible simply by taking over the already existing system - no need for revolution, expropriation, smashing of the state etc - just take over the already effectviely socialised economy and make it work for the general public good rather than for private ends.

 

[Dillinger4]

Hitler was the excess of capitalism in crisis.