Manifesto for a New World Order

[StockholmSyndrome]

The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order, by George Monbiot is a well written, well argued, expertly researched and documented book that seriously tries to find rational solutions to major global problems. It is, consequentially, very large in scope and slightly idealistic, but I think that Monbiot lays out a clear strategy that, if implemented, would go very far in bringing about the sort of gradual, evolutionary transformation that a lot of people such as myself would like to see.

There are 3 major proposals, each based on existing institutions which have similar aims but are constitutionally insufficient and currently serve the interests of capital. The three main proposals, which would be implemented in the following order, for each one makes the subsequent one tenable, are:

1. The creation of a Fair Trade Organization (counter to the WTO) to change the rules of international trade and allow for a redistribution of wealth from rich to poor nations, an "economic levelling", which would create a greater sense of human community and global cooperation, the conditions for proposition 2;

2. The creation of an International Clearing Union (counter to the World Bank) such as that proposed by John Maynard Keynes at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, which would ensure the equitable balance of trade and prevent both vicious debt cycles and extravagant trade surpluses. A Reserve Fund would be created to accumulate confiscated surplus and allow for the financing of proposition 3;
3. The creation of a World Parliament (counter to the UN) that would transcend nation-states and would be a truly democratic and legitimate voice for the world's people.

As Monbiot states in the book, by changing the rules of the game, and regulating capitalism to harness it's powers for the service of justice and equality at the global level, we create the conditions for its own transformation from within. It all starts with extending democracy to the international level.

I think I'm going to read Evolutionary Socialism by Eduard Bernstein now.:scared:

[RGacky3]

Its like the utoptian socialists, great ideas, no way to get there, ignores the power dynamic.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Its like the utoptian socialists, great ideas, no way to get there, ignores the power dynamic.

Have you even read the book?

[Dimentio]

It would probably prolong capitalism's existence with like five years.

[RGacky3]

I read what you wrote.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Well then you should read the book because he clearly addresses the power dynamic. That is pretty much the entire point.

[Dimentio]

Well then you should read the book because he clearly addresses the power dynamic. That is pretty much the entire point.

The reforms in themselves are just an attempt to institutionalise capitalism on a global level, and every smart capitalist should support them. We need to transcend capitalism though.

[StockholmSyndrome]

The reforms in themselves are just an attempt to institutionalise capitalism on a global level, and every smart capitalist should support them. We need to transcend capitalism though.

Really? The least you could do is pretend to have read the book before resorting to your tired anti-reformist dogma. Have fun in la la land.

[Dimentio]

Funny.

Someone else recently accused me of being a reformist in the other thread.

Let me see:


1. The creation of a Fair Trade Organization (counter to the WTO) to change the rules of international trade and allow for a redistribution of wealth from rich to poor nations, an "economic levelling", which would create a greater sense of human community and global cooperation, the conditions for proposition 2;

Would greatly enrich the rulers of poor nations and the ruling classes of those nations. Would probably cause more corruption.


. The creation of an International Clearing Union (counter to the World Bank) such as that proposed by John Maynard Keynes at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, which would ensure the equitable balance of trade and prevent both vicious debt cycles and extravagant trade surpluses. A Reserve Fund would be created to accumulate confiscated surplus and allow for the financing of proposition 3

This could actually be implemented without proposition 2, and could probably be implemented after the US finances collapses. Will be really good as a pillar to capitalism, and will stabilise the world's financial markets, creating some growth. It will slow down the demise of capitalism.


3. The creation of a World Parliament (counter to the UN) that would transcend nation-states and would be a truly democratic and legitimate voice for the world's people.

Many states have extensive patronage systems, so I guess a lot of leaders could make their cousins more happy by having them "elected" to this parliament. The parliamentarians would also become very happy, since most of them probably never would need to work any more, due to all the bribes from corporate lobbyists.

The parliament maybe could become an important institution in terms of trade and economy, but hardly a politically powerful institution. Why?

Because of the USA, China, Russia +197 more states which have their own national armies.

A law without the power to break the thumbs of people is toothless.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Funny.

Someone else recently accused me of being a reformist in the other thread.

Let me see:



Would greatly enrich the rulers of poor nations and the ruling classes of those nations. Would probably cause more corruption.



This could actually be implemented without proposition 2, and could probably be implemented after the US finances collapses. Will be really good as a pillar to capitalism, and will stabilise the world's financial markets, creating some growth. It will slow down the demise of capitalism.



Many states have extensive patronage systems, so I guess a lot of leaders could make their cousins more happy by having them "elected" to this parliament. The parliamentarians would also become very happy, since most of them probably never would need to work any more, due to all the bribes from corporate lobbyists.

The parliament maybe could become an important institution in terms of trade and economy, but hardly a politically powerful institution. Why?

Because of the USA, China, Russia +197 more states which have their own national armies.

A law without the power to break the thumbs of people is toothless.

Once again, you are not addressing the arguments in the book. Read the book, it is a quick read, and then come back to me.

[Dimentio]

Alrite, maybe I will do that. :)

But you haven't answered my criticism to those points.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Once again, you are not addressing the arguments in the book. Read the book, it is a quick read, and then come back to me.

Presumably you have read the book and thus can answer the criticisms.

[Amphictyonis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

[StockholmSyndrome]

Presumably you have read the book and thus can answer the criticisms.

Hmm ok so he doesn't have to read the book or understand its premises before he can begin to make criticisms of it, and the burden is on me to describe the book's arguments in detail for him? How can people have a discussion of a book and its ideas if they are not operating on a level of mutual understanding? Alas, I will humor you. Obviously I am not going to elaborate on each of George Monbiot's arguments. I'm not here to give you a book report. I'd rather hoped that someone who had actually read the book would respond to my OP for an actual discussion.


Dimentio said a Fair Trade Organization would:
Would greatly enrich the rulers of poor nations and the ruling classes of those nations. Would probably cause more corruption.

The point of a Fair Trade Organization is to allow poor people to compete fairly with the rich. It would not simply enrich the rulers of poor nations. The current system does that already.


About the International Clearing Union he said:
This could actually be implemented without proposition 2, and could probably be implemented after the US finances collapses. Will be really good as a pillar to capitalism, and will stabilise the world's financial markets, creating some growth. It will slow down the demise of capitalism.

This is an example of the disgustingly morally ambiguous position that communists and Marxists often times find themselves taking. When it comes down to it, you would rather sit back and let capitalism run amok to expedite it's inevitable demise than actually try to help people.

And finally the World Parliament:
Many states have extensive patronage systems, so I guess a lot of leaders could make their cousins more happy by having them "elected" to this parliament. The parliamentarians would also become very happy, since most of them probably never would need to work any more, due to all the bribes from corporate lobbyists.

The parliament maybe could become an important institution in terms of trade and economy, but hardly a politically powerful institution. Why?

Because of the USA, China, Russia +197 more states which have their own national armies.

A law without the power to break the thumbs of people is toothless.

Monbiot tackles each of these points precisely. For the details, please read the book. First of all, the leaders of current nation-states, especially in the rich world, would most definitely oppose the creation of a World Parliament, for it would be a body of direct representation transcending the power of nation-states. Corporate financing would be out of the question. Mechanisms would be put in place to ensure transparency and prevent special interests from influencing goings-on. And a World Parliament, voted for and representing the people of the world, would carry an enormous moral authority that no nation-state would dare use violent force to oppose. I know this sounds very simplistic and utopian but that's because it is a quick summary of about the first 140 pages of the book. For a more nuanced understanding you really should read the book and then get back to me.

[RGacky3]

By the time there is the power there to make a "fair trade" organization or a world parliment with ACTUAL teeth, we'd have enough power to have world socialism.

[Dimentio]

The point of a Fair Trade Organization is to allow poor people to compete fairly with the rich. It would not simply enrich the rulers of poor nations. The current system does that already.

The issue is not about unfair competition. It is as ludicruous to talk about fair competition under capitalism.

And since when have parliaments been bodies for direct representation?

[StockholmSyndrome]

The issue is not about unfair competition. It is as ludicruous to talk about fair competition under capitalism.

Yes it is. It is about giving people in the developing world the opportunity to build their economies in a way that does not rely on paternalistic foreign aid or Western imperialism.


And since when have parliaments been bodies for direct representation?

By direct representation it is meant that the World Parliament will not be a body of people representing their respective nations. They would be directly responsible to the people in their drawn out constituencies, which would straddle national boundaries. To quote from the book:

"The less our representatives are bound to the demands of nationhood, the less parochial their outlook is likely to be. The more we, as constituents, are forced to share our political destiny with the people of other nations, the more we are forced to understand and engage with their concerns." (87)