Friday, June 18, 2004
from a forthcoming book:
Having argued for the case of local self-rule in a people’s democracy, it must however be finally pointed out that such institutions, either residential or workplace-based, may not be necessarily democratic; and even when it is indeed democratic or so viewed, it may still not imply an impact on national politics. This had been amply evidenced in China (as elsewhere), from its traditional gentry-patriarchal despotism or vigorously self-censored folk-religious associations and “secret societies” to some contemporary civil society organizations and abused or wholly ineffective village elections. At another layer of analysis, as proven in the high-minded circles of communist puritanism, self-management by disciplined men and women could also be a form of “collective self-repression” (Walzer 1980, 213-14).
as elsewhere indeed!
certainly nothing we do in massachusetts has any impact on national politics. not that we would expect it to be so in a non-Marxist system, but the workplace is not democratic either. i wonder if democracy in the economic sphere would automatically lead to redistribution? or if greed on the one hand and "misplaced puritanism" on the other might lead to the perpetuation of inequalities.
Russell points out that different forms of power (economic, political, religious) have a tendency to coalesce. so maybe we shouldn't be surprised at the "electoral irregularities" in regions where the political power of every citizen's right to vote comes into conflict with the uneven distribution of other sources of power.
and does voting for Nader count as collective self-repression? :P
Having argued for the case of local self-rule in a people’s democracy, it must however be finally pointed out that such institutions, either residential or workplace-based, may not be necessarily democratic; and even when it is indeed democratic or so viewed, it may still not imply an impact on national politics. This had been amply evidenced in China (as elsewhere), from its traditional gentry-patriarchal despotism or vigorously self-censored folk-religious associations and “secret societies” to some contemporary civil society organizations and abused or wholly ineffective village elections. At another layer of analysis, as proven in the high-minded circles of communist puritanism, self-management by disciplined men and women could also be a form of “collective self-repression” (Walzer 1980, 213-14).
as elsewhere indeed!
certainly nothing we do in massachusetts has any impact on national politics. not that we would expect it to be so in a non-Marxist system, but the workplace is not democratic either. i wonder if democracy in the economic sphere would automatically lead to redistribution? or if greed on the one hand and "misplaced puritanism" on the other might lead to the perpetuation of inequalities.
Russell points out that different forms of power (economic, political, religious) have a tendency to coalesce. so maybe we shouldn't be surprised at the "electoral irregularities" in regions where the political power of every citizen's right to vote comes into conflict with the uneven distribution of other sources of power.
and does voting for Nader count as collective self-repression? :P
