magic princess wrote: The notion of a universalist morality implicit in the idea of world socialist revolution advocated here
Eh, this needs more explanation, I think we're not as far apart as it might seem on the surface (at least speaking for me personally). I don't believe in a world government like some socialists do.
What I envision is a world where there's optional bottom-up cooperation from self-formed groups that are otherwise left alone. These groups may be and probably would be radically different, there's no central authority telling them what to do, and this btw includes the enforcement of human rights* (which is just hypocritical warmongering propaganda from the ruling class in practice anyway) but they would all peacefully coexist.
The bottom-up coperation comes from them voluntarily signing onto shared interoperability standards, and of course voluntarily participating in the creations of them. A group my also enter into a treaty with reservations; it needn't be a package deal. This can let them work together as wanted without having to sacrifice their internal customs etc.
* If somebody is personally feeling oppressed though, they should have a way to leave their group. Important that this comes from the person's own feeling of oppression; no outsider has the right to tell you that your life is better or worse than you think it is.
This might include covert programs to smuggle people out of groups that decide to close their borders in cases... which could be a problem but I have a hard time thinking of a way to balance these desires between free people and free societies and think freedom of exit - not necessary freedom of /joining/ any group is the best I have right now. Sure, there's potential for brain drain there but if the world is fairly equitable to begin with - this is what I really mean by "global revolution" - I think that'll be ok. idk tho.