Are we moving towards a World Government?

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Cop out if you like. Your argument demands that you don't though.

I cant be arsed to entertain pedantry thanks. Let me know when you've looked through a few of the things that come up as a result of googling "IMF privatisations" and if you think they are made up.

They mention individual states. I checked that.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

With all the companies being tied to the stockmarket, and all governments unable to go against the market driven world we have. Would it be fair to say that we are evidently moving towards a decentralised form of world government?

The only ones left over are Burma, North Korea etc (see here)

Just a thought

No, not a political one. Maybe though, the nation state is being eclipsed by the economic state.

 

[EddyBlack]

Which states does this apply to then?

And what are the WTO's enforcement powers?

Argentina and Indonesia. Privatise your economies on the cheap, and we wil bail you out with extortianate loans.

 

[butchersapron]

That's world gov then? (aprt from Argentina telling the IMF to go whistle of course)

 

[butchersapron]

I cant be arsed to entertain pedantry thanks. Let me know when you've looked through a few of the things that come up as a result of googling "IMF privatisations" and if you think they are made up.

They mention individual states. I checked that.

Pointing out that the conditions that you're referring to only apply to a tiny majority of nation states, and those with little or no voice in international relations, thus undermining the world govt thesis, is not 'pedantry'. Nor is pointing out that the WTO has no powers to enforce it's rulings.

Tell me more about these "IMF privatisations" - they're a new one on me

 

[Gmart]

Tell me more about these "IMF privatisations" - they're a new one on me

Unlikely.

The conditions attached by the IMF are well known, still as Johnny points out, we are not going towards a political union, but towards an economic one which is what I was talking about.

However there seem to be accords which are converging as well. For example, we might be one of only 3 countries worldwide without a written constitution, however everyone else does have one, and these could easily converge. The law against murder is pretty consistent in all societies give or take and one might envisage this homogeneity progressing gradually.

Meanwhile rich countries spend millions on subsidies trying to keep the third world at bay but this money is always going to be up for review during harder times, leading to further development.

Unions are becoming the norm. Europe of course but also in Asia, the Americas and even Africa where development would continue to pull power away from the controlling elites and towards everyone else.

Property rights need to become more standard as they are often used to keep a a form of serfdom as in Pakistan, Bangledesh and still to a degree in India. Access to banks as well. Just these two things help the poor to improve their lives and so these sorts of conditions I have no problems with.

Democracy is key for this movement but it should be noted that historically it has come AFTER development not before. Even in the UK the universal suffrage is a relatively new phenomena.

Aid is also often given with attached conditions to stop corruption, and so it should. Sadly this seems not to work and a case could be made simply for stopping all aid because it is allowing the dictators to continue their oppression.

 

[gorski]

No reforming programme of Social Democratic kind can succeed until we have some kind of effective control over the Capital and its masks/agents.

They already messed up many such a programme [see Clinton or Mitterrand etc.] with a "few words of advice" or simple, open lobbying [see Schroeder dismissing his Left Wing finance minister trying to tax the German [not even Multi National Corporations!] businesses to pay for a variety of things]... No national pride would have kept them in Germany after that, they said - "off we go elsewhere with the production"...

Now, globalisation isn't exactly what it purports: yes for free movement of Capital but no for people etc. etc. - that is in relation to the "liberal fathers"...

The original ideas of Capital globalisers [from the original proper, deep insights into the very nature of Capital by Marx onwards - namely , that it's just a matter of time when we have the "World Gov", as the system is going to become global!!] are now moving where they were always moving, once the epochal failure of "Sur-real 'Socialism'" was obvious, and the "abomination" out of the way, and there was no strong challenge in front of it...

I warmly recommend Alex Callinicos' "Against the Third Way" for some further insights [also David Held's books on the subject]... For instance, on Capital flows [or outflows, rather] actually holding sway over Social Democratic reforming programmes etc. etc.

Even Gyorgy Soros envisages the need, right now[!!!] for "stopping him in what he is doing", bacause he is "no longer doing his corrective function but he can move markets" etc. etc. [But Soros, unlike most of them, is an enlightened and honest man!] For that the world is in desperate need of controlling the unelected Alan Greenspans and a bunch of dealers at stock markets and that can only be done on supra-national basis, I think. Others migt say "inter-gov is enough" but I seriously doubt that.

We [the little ones, as it were] have a stake in that happening - but only on truly Democratic grounds, of course... And how exactly can that happen? Well, it remains to be seen.

Right now Democratic Govs have all sorts of instruments to counteract the "Wild West" of Capitalism, from anti-monopolistic/mergers, anti-trust/concern to anti-dumping, anti-predatory pricing etc. etc. capabilities. If that is extended and deepened, in an EU manner [i.e. pooling sovereignty without any force behind it] - than maybe...

We have seen a move towards forcing the Corporations ["multi-nationals"] to become the signatories, other than states, on the UN Human Rights and similar Charters. They will also have to be reigned in in the most exploitative rape of the underdeveloped countries, too!

It is possible, it is feasible, but it ain't gonna be quick and many of us will be sorely disappointed as to just how long it will take Humanity to learn these lessons...

 

[MikeMcc]

First, you are right that UK public is EU skeptic, though probably not for pulling out. But that point actually works against your "nope" a bit because we are getting the constitution regardless.

your comments on the US are again correct, but the truth of them neednt impact on how events go.

You are basically saying "people dont want it". But what people want really doesnt get much of a look in.

But at the rate it's being imposed it would take centuries. Trying to worry about what the world's politics are like in 300-500 years time is like some worker trying to predict todays political climate from Shakespeares time! Since then just in this country we've had a King de-thoned and executed, another brought back after, then his successors kicked out so we could import a different monarchy from Holland, a gradual weakening of royal rule, the Union of England and Scotland, the creation and decline of Empire, leading involvement in two World Wars - and that is just this country!

Is a World Government likely soon, I still say nope. It's way too unacceptable to populations and governments alike. In 300-500 years, who cares?

 

[butchersapron]

Unlikely.

The conditions attached by the IMF are well known, still as Johnny points out, we are not going towards a political union, but towards an economic one which is what I was talking about.

However there seem to be accords which are converging as well. For example, we might be one of only 3 countries worldwide without a written constitution, however everyone else does have one, and these could easily converge. The law against murder is pretty consistent in all societies give or take and one might envisage this homogeneity progressing gradually.

Unions are becoming the norm. Europe of course but also in Asia, the Americas and even Africa where development would continue to pull power away from the controlling elites and towards everyone else.

(snipped losts of stuff baout other stuff)

Hmm....moving towards union? You mean a sort of aggregation of states competing with other aggregations of states - like pre-WW1 or, in fact, any time since the congress of Vienna? So, not an exceptional situation and one that is in fact is is based on the lack of a world govt.

Everyone being pulled into the world market is not world govt either.

 

[Gmart]

I said a decentralised form of world government, and I would argue that with the few exceptions I have mentioned this is true. Eventually Zimbabwe will fall as no country can have inflation so high for too long without change coming. the only places which will be able to maintain their position are places like Saudi Arabia which has so much oil that it can buy whatever country its elite wishes to create without fear of any backlash. And even they have shown signs of moving towards liberalisation in some areas seeing that the oil will run out at some point and that they need to have a mixed economy by that time or else they will be toast..

 

[butchersapron]

I said a decentralised form of world government, and I would argue that with the few exceptions I have mentioned this is true.

With few exceptions WHAT is true?

 

[Gmart]

Perhaps you could try reading the thread before commenting Butcher? Start at the OP and pay attention to your evident need to abuse me in post 2, rather than think...

 

[butchersapron]

Perhaps you could try reading the thread before commenting Butcher? Start at the OP and pay attention to your evident need to abuse me in post 2, rather than think...

I've been here since post #1 and i've read the thread believe it or not. I've now twice had to ask you what you actually mean as you've not really made an argument - i still have no idea if you're arguing that de facto WG already exists, or if you're arguing that it should exist or what?

I can sense you retreating into a position though - that WG exists through international trade and the bodies that oversee it. Myself, i don't believe that in the context of massive inequalities of international power (financial, military, cultural etc) that the imposition of the will of the needs of capital/state of a handful of high-income countries on those of low-income countries via a few supra-national bodies (the famous 'liberalisation') constitutes world govt in any meaningful sense (nor do i think the standard international relations model you're relying on to be of much use). Unless you are counting the power to dictate as govt?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

One problem is that if there was an attempt to build WG, they would hardly be dim enough to say "hello, we are your new world government". But a de facto governance through a small elite is possible. One thing to watch for is attempts to construct parallel population databases in global regions.

 

[gorski]

The market requires rules and predictability, so one takes reasonable/calculable risks when investing.

That requires regulation and a police force, courts and so on -> Gov.

World markets -> World Gov, hopefully as a multilateral UN, rather than a unilateral US Neo-Lib Empire...

There is nothing to stop it from progressing to it now, generally speaking, as we have seen it already - through many structures, processes etc.

Liberal Gov is ALWAYS siding with the owners, more than anything else. It stands for private ownership over the means of production and the idea of exploitation and domination. It is NOT neutral, it never was. AT least since it dumped "equality" [equalibertas] and "brotherhood" [solidarity] overboard, in favour or "liberty" [of ownership - and hence exploitation and domination].

Besides, a careful management of it [the rather irrational market] is necessary, due to the essential inner contradictions of Capitalism [I wrote about it many times here] - or else...

Neo-libs are nutters which are getting us backwards and it may well end in chaos...

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm sure the OP has done a similar thread or threads before, advanced the same arguments about democracy before etc.
Perhaps he's a bit "new Labour" and thinks that if he re-packages often enough, he'll get different answers?

 

[gorski]

In other words, it's what kind of WG!

It must be centralised or there is none!

It must be decentralised, too. I.e. Federal, similar to a, say, German model.

The Q is: how exactly. Democratically or...?

Then, it's the model: Social Darwinistic [adversarial model] of Neo-Lib provenance or Social Democratic [co-operative, non-coercive model] of the EU, in particular Scandinavian, kind???

I know where I stand...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Neo-libs are nutters which are getting us backwards and it may well end in chaos...

Although perhaps that's the aim?
By which I don't mean that the aim is economic anarchy, but rather a degree of social disruption that allows deeper and/or faster penetration of "market values" and the erosion/destruction of any alternatives and/or palliatives.

 

[ViolentPanda]

In other words, it's what kind of WG!

It must be centralised or there is none!

It must be decentralised, too. I.e. Federal, similar to a, say, German model.

Hmmm, but wouldn't a federal model be anathema to the larger and/or more powerful nation-states, putting them on the same level as small an/or weak nations?
I couldn't, for example, see the USA or Russia signing up for a "World Government" that gave them the same "voting rights" as the Dominican Republic.

The Q is: how exactly. Democratically or...?

Which means we have to ask "which form of democracy".

Then, it's the model: Social Darwinistic [adversarial model] of Neo-Lib provenance or Social Democratic [co-operative, non-coercive model] of the EU, in particular Scandinavian, kind???

I know where I stand...

I know where I stand, too.

 

[gorski]

Yep, negotiations in progress...

 

[gorski]

Btw, VP: if I try to extrapolate anything from your nick - you're in bed with the fascists...

 

[gorski]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=230861

 

[ViolentPanda]

Btw, VP: if I try to extrapolate anything from your nick - you're in bed with the fascists...

Which just shows how foolish it is to extrapolate anything from such limited data.

 

[gorski]

Or fun...

See, you must be in a position to hug the Nazis in order to see it necessary to fight it...

Besides, VP - that really does sound like black-red unholy coalition...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Or fun...

See, you must be in a position to hug the Nazis in order to see it necessary to fight it...

I wouldn't say "position", I'd say (unfortunately) "proximity".
I'm not of the school that believes that you can cure the delusions fascists suffer by giving them a hug, unless it's a bear-hug that breaks a few ribs.
That's right, I'm an intolerant bastard!

Besides, VP - that really does sound like black-red unholy coalition...

Am I the black or the red?

 

[butchersapron]

There's no diff man.

 

[gorski]

Indeed, VP, meaning I have got you sussed out right!

You're both red and black!

[Seriously speaking: there is an essential difference! To do with emancipation... ]

 

[david dissadent]

The nation state is dying on its arse in sub saharan Africa. Central Africa is ravage by bouts of intercomunal wars and this is spreading. After alot of progress in the 90s and early 00s instability seems to be growing again, people trust there tribal and ethnic blood ties more than they trust the artificial goverments. (tragicaly South Africa will be likely to go down the communal violence route soon as the country is falling apart badly and its GDP will take a huge hit this year).

This trend is also showing up in South Asia in places such as Pakistan and Iraq. As food and energy inflation rockets and peoples standards of living take a big hit, it is quite likely this kind of instability will spread in unpredictable ways.

I doubt strongly there will be any kind of universal government anytime soon as the economic forces creating these problems are unlikely to dissapate anytime soon.

Moreover a central government would need a coherant group pulling in the same direction. Currently the US's ability to dominate such a group is failing rapidly. Look at NATO, the quintesential exampler of a unified hegmonic force. Its falling appart. The UN has virtualy no authority left and the US army is basicaly being ground into the dust.

I think GMathews thesis in the OP works from 1990-2005, but from 2005 onwards its starts to loose ground rapidly.

 

[Gmart]

Are there any countries who aren't in the WTO or trying to get in?

 

[frogwoman]

No we're not.