Most important at this aristocratic level of Empire is the extent to which, despite appearances, its general contours remain unchanged. From this perspective, the much-heralded return of the nation-state—along with nationalist rhetoric, threatened trade wars and protectionist policies—should be understood not as a fracturing of the global system, but rather as so many tactical manoeuvres in the competition among aristocratic powers.The elite may no longer be titled aristocrats, but the class structure of feudalism and the imperial designs remain in place.
Vietnamese proverb: "The dung heap remains the same, only the flies change."
The diagnosis is obvious. But can the workers of the world unite to change the status quo?
This involves replacing the hierarchical organizational model based on class power that is prevalent with an inclusive consensual organizational model that establishes genuine governance of, by and for the people. That would be some type of democratic socialism on a global scale.
What would that look like practically speaking, and how to get from here to there?
Globalization is happening owing to the introduction of technology that makes it possible. The bottom line question is what interests are going to control it. Dominance and submission has been the ongoing political dynamic across history. The difference now is the scale that technology has brought..
1 comment:
If people had to learn to breathe, the Earth would be pristine.
People have to end their economic illiteracy (e.g. learn MMT), organize into social movements (e.g. CIO), or there will be no change.
Thinking and acting locally is an alternative to empires and their overhead. Power does not have to be centralized. Nation-states are an example of decentralized power, based roughly on geographical reality.
Alternatively, we could return to a largely agrarian existence, where economics and governance are of little concern. But even in that situation, there's an elite just waiting to make themselves indispensable.
Post a Comment