Modernity
In a long essay posted over at Headwaters I have outlined what I believe is the underlying conflict of the 21st century. Ambitious? Damn right. Once again Ive lost a wonderful opportunity to keep quiet.Basically, I do see a religious war between Christianity and Islam not so much as it is expressed in the "war on terror" but in the overall cultural clash between what paradoxicaly are very similar world views. It is actually a "war on modernity" fought not only between societies but within them as well by forces who may actually have more in common than in opposition. The external clash is actually minor and incidental in relation to the internal conflicts and contradictions. Ive tried to think dialectically. The historical irony is tragic.
I have also been investigating "free-market anti-capitalism" or mutualism or individualist libertarianism. The scholarly analysis of political-economy is intimidating to a lay person but I want to find,as part of my project of finding common ground and forming coalitions, where we can can agree and where we can agree to disagree. Im all about anti-capitalism ,Im just not sure about the anti-collectivist or individualist organizing principle. or theory of labor. or program for effecting change. or its relationship to historical development or class analysis. or real possibility of an existing "free market". I need to learn more because anarchists will need to be part of this project.
I finally made it through The Age of Extremes by Hobsbawm, a tough slog but worthwhile. A review is forthcoming but I think my wife would rather I go shopping.
posted by troutsky @ 11:10 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Troutsky,
You said: "I need to learn more because anarchists will need to be part of this project."
And I say: "Damn skippy they (anarchists) do!"
However, I would only like to add that we have to be careful who we are calling "anarchists". As has been stated for a very long time: "While every socialist is not necessarily and anarchist, every anarchist is a socialist."
Although I don't strictly adhere to this idea or any other labeling system, I am more disturbed by the Anarcho-capitalists and any association made with the vast majority of socialist anarchists.
Obviously che bob, we are going to have to come to some consensus on some of these labels or we will have no ground from which to start building.The mutualist calls himself a free-market anti-capitalist( equal ownership, allocation by market).This is also considered a libertarian program but opposed to what he terms "vulgar libertarianism"(private ownership, market allocation?).How is this similar or different to Anarcho-capitalists? No state structure but private ownership of the means of production? how do syndicalists (no state and collective ownership?)fit in and what of this differentiating is critical and what esoteric? I also think it necessary to come up with working definitions of such terms as the State( promoter of the general welfare or bureacratic center of planning) or government( representative or direct democracy) and class definitions adapted to present conditions that will help us understand structure and where power is within that frame. Conflicts of an abstract or theoretical nature that cause sectarian divisions need to be identified in lay terms and practical examples to see how they apply to current conditions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Post a Comment
<< Home