From: "Eric" <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net> Subject: Wallerstein Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:56:14 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Steve, Thanks for providing this text. Having read it, I don't really see all that much difference between Wallerstein's position and Hardt's. Both share a commitment for extending the welfare state to a global context, and argue that, while this step is necessary, agree it hasn't actually occurred yet. The global society remains viable, yet it is still very fragile, and it will probably require a 'regime change' within the United States before it can be more fully realized. That much said, what is it we are really talking about here? I don't think, at this stage, it amounts to encroaching Marxism, socialism, communism or anarchy. Instead, it is simply an extension of political liberalism, in the form developed by Kant and Rawls, that insists upon the moral autonomy of self-governing citizens who are bound by practical reason rather than mere rational self-interest alone and who practice 'justice as fairness' emphasizing liberty as the first principle and who tolerate some measure of relative inequality as the price of continued innovation. Perhaps, if such a form of the global welfare state were actually realized, then within a generation or two, the world might move closer to a truer form of socialized democracy, barring any intermittent catastrophe. Such is the form the two-step process, described by Wallerstein, appears to be evolving towards in the current time period. eric
HTML VERSION:
Steve,
Thanks for providing this text. Having read it, I don’t really see
all that much difference between Wallerstein’s position and Hardt’s. Both share a commitment for extending
the welfare state to a global context, and argue that, while this step is
necessary, agree it hasn’t actually occurred yet. The global society remains viable, yet it
is still very fragile, and it will probably require a ‘regime change’
within the
That much said,
what is it we are really talking about here? I don’t think, at this
stage, it amounts to encroaching Marxism, socialism, communism or anarchy. Instead, it is simply an extension of
political liberalism, in the form developed by Kant and Rawls, that insists upon
the moral autonomy of self-governing citizens who are bound by practical reason
rather than mere rational self-interest alone and who practice ‘justice
as fairness’ emphasizing liberty as the first principle and who tolerate
some measure of relative inequality as the price of continued innovation.
Perhaps, if such a form of the global
welfare state were actually realized, then within a generation or two, the
world might move closer to a truer form of socialized democracy, barring any
intermittent catastrophe. Such is
the form the two-step process, described by Wallerstein, appears to be evolving
towards in the current time period.
eric