Would you support global solidarity over a global government?

[Zalatix]

Here's my proposal: toss out the WTO, toss out the UN, and replace them with a network of treaties and gatherings of worker's parties from around the world. Each workers party reflects the interests of their own country and they share information with workers parties in other nations. Instead of unaccountable representatives gathering passing laws to enforce upon individual nations, the workers of every country elect delegates to go exchange ideas with other workers' delegates. Of course many countries already have workers parties, but I am proposing something different: that we actually replace the WTO and UN with them.

Also... can we trust such a system to care about racial equality, women's rights and the environment? I simply do not think that it is worth cramming our values down another nation's throat with things like the WTO (who dared to tell the United States we couldn't label our own TUNA) or the UN. And we've had far too many examples of foreign military intervention turning disastrous (see: blowback, UN rape scandals, etc.).

There's got to be a way we can bring about solidarity around the world without the heavy handed element of international force. How can you run international agencies with military backing without forcing your values on an unwilling populace? How can you liberate a clearly oppressed people, say, Syria, without creating even MORE problems in the process (say, igniting a Sunni-Shiite holy war)?

[pampango]

1. Sounds like a great idea.

Getting people from every country together to talk about their concerns and, presumably, try to do something about them is a great idea.

[Zalatix]

2. Yeah, because a one world government doesn't cause unity.

In fact it could exacerbate the divisions between people and make things even more divisive.

Consider how divided America is becoming - the dingbats (Conservatives) and the liberals. We cannot live with each other. We really cannot.

[pampango]

3. If you're right about that, that is another reason why your idea is a great one.

I think workers from all over the world discussing their problems would, over time, find that their problems with the 1% were more alike than they are different. Perhaps that would not happen, but I think it would which is why I would support your idea.

If workers find common ground for coordinated action over time, which I think they would, then they will work together to solve problems. If not and they preferred to talk and give each other advice but not to reach across national borders to solve problems (which might be your preference), then so be it. It is worth a try.