File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2002/lyotard.0212, message 91


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 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


Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005