The first state that adopts the Work-Standard could be any nation. The details of the Work-Standard are broad enough to envisage a variety of different geographical locales and different ways of living by recognizing the multiplicities of different ways of economic life on Earth. It can be an industrialized nation in the middle of Europe as well as a city-state like Vatican City. The nation can just as easily be a developing country in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East or Asia. It can even be a country as large as Russia, China or the United States.
What matters is whether its government is consciously willing to adopt the Work-Standard and restructure the political, economic and financial realms through reform. Nations already under Socialism will have an easier time to make the necessary adjustments insofar as the Work-Standard allows for the reversal of market reforms. This is because the market reforms were based on Liberal Capitalist concepts, philosophies, methodologies, and policies. In fact, those same market reforms which the existing Socialist nations and the historical ones adopted could not have been possible without specific monetary policies enabling them. An argument can be made that there was also the presence of a technological and artistic basis behind making those policies an actuality.
The Work-Standard will no doubt alter applications of Technology and how people interface with them in their everyday lives. When the Total Mobilization of Production for Profit or Utility gets replaced by the Total Mobilization of Production for Dasein, the Work-Standard will also allow for the existences of Council Democracy and the VCS Economy. Its methods require specific artforms and applications cognizant of the ways of Arbeit into Geld, Geld into Arbeit. The Arbeiter is more than capable of helping the nation adjust itself to the Work-Standard.
Granted, the real challenge pertains to the issue of political-economic and currency “Unions” within the Western world. Both the EU/NATO and the United States are organized as Unions, regardless of whether the Liberal Capitalists in the West will acknowledge this or not. Unions like the American Union or the European Union have their own legal jurisprudence which are binding on all of its members. Their central government authorities have the power to implement the Work-Standard. However, there is always the question of whether the American and European Unions are willing to fully adopt it. It is possible that they may try piecemeal reforms, only to find lackluster results that complicate everything for everyone involved such as the Arbeiter.
Unlike the US, it is more feasible to expect a European nation to have an easier time fully adopting it. As the UK had demonstrated in the Brexit Referendum, nothing is stopping anyone in Europe from deciding to leave the EU except the consent of a majority within member-state in question. A European nation leaving the Eurozone will regain sovereignty over its national currency again will be as able to implement the Work-Standard as the other nations outside the Western world. The US is a different matter because of its longer history and the opposing visions of America between Hamiltonianism and Jeffersonianism. The Federal government, specifically Congress, has the power under the US Constitution to allow for the implementation of the Work-Standard. Unfortunately, there is no interest in Congress for anything as unconventional as the Work-Standard, given its Hamiltonian tendencies. The implications clash with the Jeffersonians of the Democratic-Republican Party; it matters very little if they are Democrats or Republicans.
American history has demonstrated that when the Hamiltonians in the Federalist Party were in power, they advocated for the centralization of the American Union. The need to maintain the Union was justifiable then as it is now; it was only the Jeffersonians who wanted the Union to create an Empire of Liberty and impose it on all of humanity for as long as the Union exists. It was they who wanted the Union to leave Latin America weak, divided and dependent on the US. Alexander Hamilton rejected that fate for Latin America, an obscure historical footnote within American history. What Hamilton wanted for Latin America was a similar Union to call its own, which would have been the case if Simon Bolivar was able to realize it in the late 18th century. Another Union in Latin America has the potential for the continent to be able to sustain itself and act as an ally and be a counterbalance to the US and anyone outside of the Americas. The power struggles that Latin America waged against the US over the centuries in Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile and Argentina were a reaction to the excesses of American power on the continent.
The question regarding Latin America from a Hamiltonian Federalist perspective has been about the issue of the Monroe Doctrine, which came into being in the presidency of Thomas Jefferson’s other protégé, James Monroe. Theodore Roosevelt could have rejected the Monroe Doctrine, but he insisted that he had to tolerate it out of geopolitical expedience when he added his own “Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. He argued that American hegemony in Latin America was necessary in order to prevent the European colonialists at the turn of the 20th century, who were then preparing for the later confrontation in World War I, from exerting their own hegemony in Latin America. It also was part of the same motivation behind Roosevelt justifying the consolidation of American economic power there through the construction of the Panama Canal. His cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was more interested in furthering the Empire of Liberty which Woodrow Wilson never succeeded when World War I.
Even so, the Roosevelt Corollary still has the potential for the possibility of another doctrine favorable to Hamiltonian Federalism and all of Latin America in particular. The possibility is there for a new doctrine to serve as the antithesis to the Monroe Doctrine by having the US and a Latin American Union serve as the two counterweights of the Americas. Any instability in one half of the Americas will eventually endanger the other half because of the geography of this part of the world. It has always been there, even in spite of the Monroe Doctrine and the realization of the Empire of Liberty in the 1945 and its later height of power in 1991. If the American people can give up Jeffersonianism and think more like a Hamiltonian, there will always be ways for Latin America find the peace, stability and prosperity that they rightfully deserve. The US-Mexico Border can become just as peaceful as the US-Canada Border, but a great effort is needed for the peoples of the Americas to arrive at that consensus.
Furthermore, any other Union that does come into existence will always have the challenge of balancing the powers between the Totality and the Individual. Where the “Totality” once described the people who democratically uphold the sovereignty of their nation, refers to the peoples who had consented to the creation of their Union in this context. And where the “Individual” once stood for the Self, an actual person no matter who they are, now refers to a member of that Union. The Will-to-Power of the Individual is to be subjected to the Will-to-Power of the Totality. But at what point do certain powers belong to this Individual and which powers belong to the Totality?
The Work-Standard can point to several examples of this. In monetary policy, shall the members of this Union have their own Currencies pegged to the Work-Standard, on a particular Currency issued by one of their members, a central monetary authority like the ECB does with the Euro? In economic policy, shall the Union have a single unified economy, establish a “Real Trade Area” where their Union must decide by a consensus among the Heads of State, or respect the existences of the economies of their member-states? In political policy, shall the Union’s member-states be led by their own central government, as a Confederation, by one of its member-states, as part of an alliance united around mutually shared interests?
These questions do not have a right or wrong answer. It is up to the people of the member-states who constitute any Union to decide for themselves. Once their decision has been made, it will be respected until everyone decides otherwise.