To be left means to be cosmopolitan

How would a world governance look like?

Whilst a global system of law is build as federal basic democracy under the principle of subsidiarity, this perspective implies IMAO no aggravation for most material situation of the most. Human rights could be guarenteed in a more reliabel and just way and invidivual freedoms could be facilitated. Traveling without borders could be possible which is a special form of knowledge enhancing unique and transcultural prosocial behavior. Especially climate change and globalization demand a worldwide regulation to save humanity's possibility of existence.

But the power elite would be in jeopardy. Its strategy of divide et impera could loose its impact. Although a cosmopolitan society promises socio-ecological, cultural and economic improvements, it isn't a guarantor for peace. Its design has to be scientific evident in order to prevent abuse of power. A group of colluder could realize an eternal repression if you believe the dystopic apologists. Cultural and national peculiarities could become extinct which - in fact - is a normal process if we take a look on our history on our planet.

Uncle Joe would like some words with you

If you were smart you will know that world socialism will mean no governments, not even a world government
Still cosmopolitanism is an underrated ideology that we should embrace more

Do not speak of things you do not understand.

Socialism has the state, though. Only communism does not.

dictatorship of the proletariat isn't socialism

First we must abolish capitalism.

Lol wtf is this

Not really.
One is quite able to be left wing without holding cosmopolitan positions.
Likewise, one is able to hold cosmopolitan positions without being a leftist (myself for example).

Well that would depend upon what system claims that prize.

A modern capitalist global government is rather easy to imagine as we are not far removed from that currently.
Global workers rights would be crushed, environmental destruction would accelerate and the power would lie in the hands of a small number of international super corporations that own pretty much everything.
Much like today, the majority of people would put up with their retched existence due to the corporate controlled political class providing the people with some democratic farce and a poor pantomime of governance.

A socialist government is harder to predict due to both how dead the contemporary left is and the sheer number of ideologies encompassed by 'Socialism'.
While certainly better then the capitalist alternative, I think it is quite reasonable to suggest that any left wing world government would have a tremendous number of inherent problems to face:
1) Dealing with a global (first world) population that only knows cultural capitalism.
2) Dealing with the inherently inefficient model of worker directed production on a global scale.
3) Attempting to organise and manage a global electoral system that has to deal with both macro (infrequent) and micro (extremely frequent) elections.

Now a Technocratic global government is quite a different beast.
Efficient computer driven central planning and a total rejection of scarcity economics would result in the entirety of our species (that was living in a Technate built city) being able to experience the joys of (effective) post scarcity.
Cultural and religious divisions would no longer exist as such pre-Technocracy relics would be systematically liquidated and replaced with a new global language, culture and religion.
Finally the scalability of the Technocratic rank system ensures that order and a clear chain of command can be maintained wherever a person happens to find themselves posted across the planet.

how can you reject scarcity economics if scarcity exists? it sounds like rejecting gravity and jumping off a building.

Well you have to keep in mind that in terms of commodities, scarcity is something that is mostly artificially maintained in order to allow for capitalism to continue to function.
If you get rid of a price system and replace it with a distributive system, commodity scarcity rapidly evaporates.

While you are correct that due to the nature of the universe, true post-scarcity is impossible.
A system that maintains a state of effective post-scarcity is something we have been able to do for the past ~80 years.

Source? Not for doubt, for research.

Agreed. As for an international system of governance, I imagine a world confederation of communes.

The (attached) Technocracy Study Course.
While I would recommend that you read the whole thing to get the most out of it.
You can find the basic design of such a system under 'Technocracy: The Design'.
It is lesson 21 of the book.

I should probably also point out that the book was originally published in 1934, so the design for an (effective) post-scarcity system has existed in print for around 83 years now.


Clearly you didn't think this through.

If it weren't for Capitalism, we'd be able to dig infinite resources out of the ground, grow infinite crops from a farm, and get infinite productions from labour

At last I truly see

In this thread, OP is wondering why leftypol is essentially ostracized, and leftism is in freefall decline.

Despite this being explained very concisely, he will continue to not understand.

Yes, actually. Read Locke.

You're not even close to the limits of the conservation of matter, and most of your wealth in the current age amounts to less than a pound of sand, actually.

Sort of reminds me why the Pre-Stalinist Soviet citizens supported Esperanto.
But as was rightfully pointed out, cosmopolitanism is a threat against socialist ideology.
For socialism to spread or even be maintained after the fall of communism in one state, counterrevolutionary rhetoric must be removed from the environment of a revolutionary society.

how was cosmopolitanism counterrevolutionary?

As long as a single desert exists we are not post-scarcity. Furthermore ideological wealth doesn't mean shit when the rest of the world plays by the rules of material wealth. At the end of the day you still need to fucking eat.

youre a fuckin faggot and your parents are probably yuppies, someone should slap you and take your shit

Oh, I apologise.
I was unaware that my posts would be seen by an an-cap audience.
Let me break this down nice and easy for you, sweetie.
Let me know if I use any words you don't understand.

Capitalist factories do not produce as many goods as possible, as this would decrease the scarcity of the good and devalue it.
They instead produce as many as has been deemed most profitable.
This is an example of the scarcity economics interfering with the production of goods.
As rather then produce as much of a good as needed to satisfy total demand, goods are only produced in amounts that maximise return in capital.
This is something that applies to any capitalist interaction with commonalties, manufactured or mined.

The truth of the matter is that modern technology has made things so hyper efficient and productive that have to strictly control the output of goods.
The mechanisation of agriculture has resulted in even relatively small farms having a raw food output capable of sustaining many.
The introduction of heavy, specialised machinery to mining has allowed us to access mineral deposits once untouchable and strip their bounty in record time.
Modern factories have such a high degree of material output that they seldom get more then a 10% use rating of their actual capacity.

Simply put.
A state of effective post scarcity is honestly rather trivial to achieve at this point.
We have been on the edge of it for ~80 years, yet we have maintained this current hell in the name of greed for the few.
Due to just how productive modern technology is, scarcity is artificially maintained.

I hope that was understandable for someone of an-cap level intelligence.