I also believe that in a number of ways capitalism, particularly late capitalism, lays the seeds for socialism. On a global level too. So the push to world government, is undemocratic to the extent that it expresses the interests only of finance capital. However it is progressive in that it explores the forms whereby if the working people could express their interests powerfully enough, they could make a qualitative step to world socialism. I see the moral arguments of Hobbes and Lock as giving a partially false ideological explanation to a material class struggle being fought out under their eyes.
Power does corrupt but in class society power is inevitable.
So I would argue we should not be against power as such, including on a global level. I would say world power is urgently needed to control the blind workings of the financial market and the destruction of the biosphere. It may be easier to discuss these principles further from time to time in relation to specific questions, where there is a dispute about which side is more progressive. From one point of view of the dialectic yes. But it is a world government in the making nonetheless, and that is progressive relative to world anarchy, dominated by the uncontrolled workings of global capitalism.