World Political Federation

[Libertad the Second]

I want to ask fellow comrades questions about world federation and government:

1. Can the global capitalist system actually thrive more under a world federation set-up or does the capitalist system can really flourish only in a strongly fragmented world composed of prisons (in my opinion) called nation-states?

2. At this current day and age, can a capitalist world recognize that it now really needs to unite politically just for us to get through the next 50 years of the 21st century or we would just fall backwards towards another dark ages once again... after all, if capitalism thrives under divide and conquer policies... then we're really going to shit...

3. Does Marxist theory really states stateless communism really come first before world communism? Then, if that's the case there would be no need for a world socialist state after all. :confused:

4. Do you think we're in some kind of a global "government" right now? ;)

5. Is the current US federal model a viable model for a world federation from a communist/socialist/ultra left perspective?

I mean, if you're going to look at it closely, even if the entire world suddenly acquires a strong global attitude... billions outside China and India would look at such a disproportionate influence they would get in a world socialist government.... so the US federal model seems to cater towards that.

The Electoral College and the Senate analogues would be used most likely to counter such disproportionate influence... and a cap would be put for the winner take all electoral votes... while the rest would be proportionally distributed. An independent electoral commission would also be set-up to prevent politically minded gerry mandering if you're going to look at it.

Hmmmm.... Please tell me your thoughts people... Thank you. :)

[Blake's Baby]

I want to ask fellow comrades questions about world federation and government:

1. Can the global capitalist system actually thrive more under a world federation set-up or does the capitalist system can really flourish only in a strongly fragmented world composed of prisons (in my opinion) called nation-states? ...

I think most Marxists would see the division of the world into states as being inevitable. It's very difficult to see how there would be any drive towards a 'world federation'.


...2. At this current day and age, can a capitalist world recognize that it now really needs to unite politically just for us to get through the next 50 years of the 21st century or we would just fall backwards towards another dark ages once again... after all, if capitalism thrives under divide and conquer policies... then we're really going to shit...

Why do you think the capitalist world 'needs to unite politically'? What makes you think it could?


3. Does Marxist theory really states stateless communism really come first before world communism? Then, if that's the case there would be no need for a world socialist state after all. :confused: ...

I'm not even sure what this means.

There is a lot of disagreement among different groups that claim to be Marxist about how the revolution will develop throughout the world.

I don't think there will be a 'world socialist state', they're three words that have no meaning when put together, as far as I'm concerned, as it's difficult to imagine a state comprising an entire planet - no need of one of the prime purposes of a state, external defence in this case; and a state is an organ of class society, but if the whole planet is in the hands of the revolutionary working class, then all property (the entire economic apparatus) is also in the hands of the working class, at which point property is effectively abolished and the basis of the state (classes based on property) no longer exists. So no 'world... state'.

As socialism for most of us is the same as communism, there's no '...socialist state' either, because socialism is what happens after property, classes and states.

I don't have a problem with 'world' and 'socialist' being put together however.



...4. Do you think we're in some kind of a global "government" right now? ;) ...

No. The capitalist system dominates the planet but it's not (nor can it be) consciously controlled.



5. Is the current US federal model a viable model for a world federation from a communist/socialist/ultra left perspective?...

No. The USA was the most revolutionary state on the planet, for approximately 15 years in the late 18th century. Why would we want to replicate a particularly outmoded form of bourgeois republic as the society of the future?



..I mean, if you're going to loo.k at it closely, even if the entire world suddenly acquires a strong global attitude... billions outside China and India would look at such a disproportionate influence they would get in a world socialist government.... so the US federal model seems to cater towards that...

Really don't know what you mean here. Are you proposing that the people of the future socialist world will be scared of Indians and Chinese because there's more of them? Why would that happen?



...The Electoral College and the Senate analogues would be used most likely to counter such disproportionate influence... and a cap would be put for the winner take all electoral votes... while the rest would be proportionally distributed. An independent electoral commission would also be set-up to prevent politically minded gerry mandering if you're going to look at it.

Hmmmm.... Please tell me your thoughts people... Thank you. :)

Socialism is not like a huge bourgeois republic. If you want one bit of the American system that might have an analogue in the socialist future, I'd think it would be the New England town meeting, which is at least a little like kind of direct democracy.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

So a system of global governance (not necessarily global government) is definitely going to be necessary to coordinate adaptation to climate change (which is inevitable at this point, unless a revolution occurs within the next 2-3 years at the latest). However, the logic of capital accumulation forces nation-states to compete against each other to obtain the best possible conditions for capital. So, unless a new global hegemon emerges that can force the rest of the world to follow its planetary governance, it seems unlikely to me that any such system would emerge under capitalism.

[Libertad the Second]

I think most Marxists would see the division of the world into states as being inevitable. It's very difficult to see how there would be any drive towards a 'world federation'.

Hmmmm... Ok.



Why do you think the capitalist world 'needs to unite politically'? What makes you think it could?

An extraterrestrial "threat"? :laugh:

To be honest though, any very advanced extraterrestrial civilizations out there is most likely NOT capitalist. ;)

And would not invade other planets for "resources".... If some kind of this sprout out... I would be very, very skeptical... since the military-industrial complex and the international capitalist class might just created this to further legitimize their position... If we're going to go "conspiracy theory territory" in this discussion... but come on, we're in the most brutal phase of capitalist right now.... for me.




I'm not even sure what this means.

You've already answered my question in this.


There is a lot of disagreement among different groups that claim to be Marxist about how the revolution will develop throughout the world.

I don't think there will be a 'world socialist state', they're three words that have no meaning when put together, as far as I'm concerned, as it's difficult to imagine a state comprising an entire planet - no need of one of the prime purposes of a state, external defence in this case; and a state is an organ of class society, but if the whole planet is in the hands of the revolutionary working class, then all property (the entire economic apparatus) is also in the hands of the working class, at which point property is effectively abolished and the basis of the state (classes based on property) no longer exists. So no 'world... state'.

As socialism for most of us is the same as communism, there's no '...socialist state' either, because socialism is what happens after property, classes and states.

I don't have a problem with 'world' and 'socialist' being put together however.


This is the answer.


No. The capitalist system dominates the planet but it's not (nor can it be) consciously controlled.

In conspiracy theory territory that I've researched that is leaning radical left..., It's at least being partly scientifically planned by an unindentified group of really powerful people outside the planet's government structures the far-right is fond of calling as "Illuminati" but could be called more as "Big Boys" or the "Global Controllers" and the entire world right now is actually divided into about... 7 cartels as far as I can remember: energy, food, medicine, religion... and 3 more.


No. The USA was the most revolutionary state on the planet, for approximately 15 years in the late 18th century. Why would we want to replicate a particularly outmoded form of bourgeois republic as the society of the future?

1776-1789... about 13 years...

I want this idea of the USA as the most revolutionary state on the planet under the Articles of Confederation until the Constitution sort of destroyed it... be further expounded... :tt1:

Can you please do it for me? ;)

Ok. From the Brief History of Everything by Ken Wilber, Ken talks about how the United States Constitution can be considered as still a largely "agrarian document"...


Really don't know what you mean here. Are you proposing that the people of the future socialist world will be scared of Indians and Chinese because there's more of them? Why would that happen?

I've thought about this because before the arrival of world stateless communism... I thought that there would be a phase of world socialism with its world socialist federation... and lingering bourgeois attitudes around might result in calls of preventing Indians and Chinese to drown out the voices of other parts of the world.. in this hypothetical world socialist federation.


Socialism is not like a huge bourgeois republic. If you want one bit of the American system that might have an analogue in the socialist future, I'd think it would be the New England town meeting, which is at least a little like kind of direct democracy.

Well, I like the concept of participatory politics... New Englanders would of course use their town meeting model for this case. :)

[Libertad the Second]

So a system of global governance (not necessarily global government) is definitely going to be necessary to coordinate adaptation to climate change (which is inevitable at this point, unless a revolution occurs within the next 2-3 years at the latest). However, the logic of capital accumulation forces nation-states to compete against each other to obtain the best possible conditions for capital. So, unless a new global hegemon emerges that can force the rest of the world to follow its planetary governance, it seems unlikely to me that any such system would emerge under capitalism.

Ok. I understand. :)

[Libertad the Second]

Does anyone have to say about my thread? :)